> Any UBI system that provided even poverty level wages would require significant tax increases to pay for it

Or cutting other things to pay for it, in addition to smaller tax increases. And the costs go down once it's bootstrapped long enough to obtain the long-term economic benefits that grow the economy (which will take a while to materialize).

Honestly, my biggest concern with it is that people will (rightfully) worry that it won't last more than 4-8 years because the subsequent administration will attack it with everything they have, and thus treat it as temporary.

▲

caseysoftware 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> And the costs go down once it's bootstrapped long enough to obtain the long-term economic benefits that grow the economy (which will take a while to materialize).

That's a major claim. Which places under UBI (or in one of the experiments) has that manifested?

▲

parineum 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> And the costs go down once it's bootstrapped long enough to obtain the long-term economic benefits that grow the economy (which will take a while to materialize).

This is hypothetical, isn't it?

	▲	vidarh 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Depends what you mean. We have a decent idea of the velocity of money of households at different income levels on the basis of how likely people are to spend all their money vs. holding on to them in ways that may or may not be as effective at stimulating economic activity. In that sense it is not particularly hypothetical. In terms of whether people will be more likely to e.g. start a business, that part is a lot more hypothetical. There have been some trials where there seems to have been some effect, but others where it's not clear. That effect seems very much hypothetical. But that was not part of the classical argument for UBI, and I don't think it's a good idea to use it as an argument for UBI.