So having criticized AK earlier for his “main” point that he seemed not to realize that in practice politically today UBI is only as an additive, not a replacement, program, having reread the transcript of the 2017 Mike Munger EconTalk podcast on the topic, I’d like to praise AK for two of the ideas he’s injected into the conversation - …
So having criticized AK earlier for his “main” point that he seemed not to realize that in practice politically today UBI is only as an additive, not a replacement, program, having reread the transcript of the 2017 Mike Munger EconTalk podcast on the topic, I’d like to praise AK for two of the ideas he’s injected into the conversation - of course in the context of UBI replacing most/all current transfer programs - above:
1) that the “‘UBI” specifically *not* be enough to live on.
This minimizes the work disincentive problem. But of course, doesn’t on its own solve the problem of actually living. And so he adds:
2) that the federal government could fund charities who are closer to individuals who could then distribute more funds to “deserving” people.
There are of course all sorts of risks and problems associated with 2), but I think the principle is a good one.
In line with other public-private partnerships, let me suggest that IMO by far the best way to solve the single biggest problem with this approach - namely, that people are more careful with their own money than with someone else’s - the federal money could *only* go to organizations that are also putting up and distributing money of their own. Say 50-50 (maybe it could be as little as 30-70, idk, but it *must* be a reasonably large percentage). So federal tax money as a force multiplier to private charities for the poor.
So having criticized AK earlier for his “main” point that he seemed not to realize that in practice politically today UBI is only as an additive, not a replacement, program, having reread the transcript of the 2017 Mike Munger EconTalk podcast on the topic, I’d like to praise AK for two of the ideas he’s injected into the conversation - of course in the context of UBI replacing most/all current transfer programs - above:
1) that the “‘UBI” specifically *not* be enough to live on.
This minimizes the work disincentive problem. But of course, doesn’t on its own solve the problem of actually living. And so he adds:
2) that the federal government could fund charities who are closer to individuals who could then distribute more funds to “deserving” people.
There are of course all sorts of risks and problems associated with 2), but I think the principle is a good one.
In line with other public-private partnerships, let me suggest that IMO by far the best way to solve the single biggest problem with this approach - namely, that people are more careful with their own money than with someone else’s - the federal money could *only* go to organizations that are also putting up and distributing money of their own. Say 50-50 (maybe it could be as little as 30-70, idk, but it *must* be a reasonably large percentage). So federal tax money as a force multiplier to private charities for the poor.