Universal basic income gains support in South Korea after Covid(asia.nikkei.com)
asia.nikkei.com
Universal basic income gains support in South Korea after Covid
https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Universal-basic-income-gains-support-in-South-Korea-after-COVID
40 comments
Would UBI just be absorbed by an increase in rent and housing prices?
Just like asset inflation occurs when the government hands out trillions to huge corporations that gets turned around and invested in already high stocks?
I like the idea from this article that basic income is a form of simplifying the government's social programs, leading to a smaller government overall. Slowly building up the basic income as those social programs are deconstructed is a wise way to do it.
This reason is why it can be pitched to conservatives as well as progressives. It should be noted though, that basic income cannot 100% replace the welfare state. You cannot just give basic income to a person with sufficiently problematic mental health issues, for example, and call it a day. But yes, as a general rule, this is a point in the + column for UBI.
How does the welfare state currently help person with sufficiently problematic mental health issues ?
It doesn't. The welfare state has been gutted, and those with sufficiently problematic mental health issues are usually left to die in the gutter and/or beg for change.
But the system the US used to have, pre-Reaganomics, and which can still be accessed by those who are lucky enough to have other who can ensure their well-being on their behalf, involves placing those who are unable to fend for themselves, into organizations/homes/institutions/facilities where their needs can be met.
I know an individual who is badly schizophrenic. His family has managed to handle all of his paperwork, and get him placed in a home where he is overseen, that keeps him occupied, socialized, and out of trouble, with easy and regularly (monitored) access to the treatments he needs, and which are outside of his capability to acquire for himself. (This is NO small task. Our current system makes this extremely, and intentionally, difficult)
My point is, organizations such as the home he is in, could be funded through UBI (the UBI that said family member would be entitled to), instead of being paid for by a mix of his family members and the welfare state.
But there will always still be a need for governmental organizations / welfare state to ensure the existence of, regulation of, and potentially subsidization of, places such as that home.
I'm a huge proponent of UBI. But my point was just, UBI can replace a large % of the welfare state. It can't replace it 100%. There is still a role for government. You cannot just give people like said acquaintance money, and call the problem solved : )
But the system the US used to have, pre-Reaganomics, and which can still be accessed by those who are lucky enough to have other who can ensure their well-being on their behalf, involves placing those who are unable to fend for themselves, into organizations/homes/institutions/facilities where their needs can be met.
I know an individual who is badly schizophrenic. His family has managed to handle all of his paperwork, and get him placed in a home where he is overseen, that keeps him occupied, socialized, and out of trouble, with easy and regularly (monitored) access to the treatments he needs, and which are outside of his capability to acquire for himself. (This is NO small task. Our current system makes this extremely, and intentionally, difficult)
My point is, organizations such as the home he is in, could be funded through UBI (the UBI that said family member would be entitled to), instead of being paid for by a mix of his family members and the welfare state.
But there will always still be a need for governmental organizations / welfare state to ensure the existence of, regulation of, and potentially subsidization of, places such as that home.
I'm a huge proponent of UBI. But my point was just, UBI can replace a large % of the welfare state. It can't replace it 100%. There is still a role for government. You cannot just give people like said acquaintance money, and call the problem solved : )
I would posit that it does so in a piecemeal and arbitrary way, leaving many destitute. Seems like a simplified basic income would help more people in need, though it wouldn't necessarily adress the mental health side of things
It would be interesting to live in a national with UBI. How would it change interactions with homeless on the streets?
"No, I know you make $1000 a month like we all do, I'm not giving you money."
Speaking of which, I wonder how much money people give to homeless people each year...
"No, I know you make $1000 a month like we all do, I'm not giving you money."
Speaking of which, I wonder how much money people give to homeless people each year...
One should already be wary of giving to beggars on the street. Some already make a considerable amount of money and don't pay taxes on it (especially if they are busking in well-trafficked areas). Sometimes, if the beggar is part of a large clan that moves to an area to beg seasonally, all that money you are giving is immediately sent on to the "king" and the beggar does not get to keep any of it, so you aren't really helping. This is the reason why municipalities stress time and time again that you shouldn't give money to beggars, even without UBI.
If someone is busking I will give them money for providing me the pleasure of listening to their music. They are not begging. When I give an exceptional guitarist in the main square in Krakow ten zloty, that is not charity, it is payment for services rendered. If he or she does or does not pay tax on it is a matter for them and the tax authorities not me.
I almost never give money to actual beggars, partly because I feel that they should provide something in exchange but also because it is clear that many are part of criminal organizations that siphon off the bulk of the money (that is at least how it seems to be here in Norway).
I almost never give money to actual beggars, partly because I feel that they should provide something in exchange but also because it is clear that many are part of criminal organizations that siphon off the bulk of the money (that is at least how it seems to be here in Norway).
[deleted]
If the proposition is to add UBI on top of the existing welfare programs, it will be a very hard sell to conservatives and libertarians. If you hope to win those two groups over, you need to demolish the welfare state, a proposition which will be opposed by many progressives/liberals.
I'd be fine taking the current 'welfare state' budget and redividing it any which way between UBI and current welfare priorities- for instance completely gutting food stamps but parsing out equivalent into the UBI stipend.
That was one of the points Andrew Yang made when he was pitching the Freedom Dividend.
Noting the efficiency of giving people money directly, and they can use it in a way that would be most useful in their particular case.
Noting the efficiency of giving people money directly, and they can use it in a way that would be most useful in their particular case.
I'd like to see research on the frequency of universal income payments, and the effects it has in the welfare of the recipient.
For example, is it best to pay $10/day, $70/week, $300/month or $3600/year?
For recipients who don't do financial planning and saving, $10/day might cause more spending on food etc., While $3600/year might lead to more 'investments' like buying a laptop or registering for a training course.
For example, is it best to pay $10/day, $70/week, $300/month or $3600/year?
For recipients who don't do financial planning and saving, $10/day might cause more spending on food etc., While $3600/year might lead to more 'investments' like buying a laptop or registering for a training course.
As somewhere to start there be some preexisting research on the effects of tax returns on poorer families that I would not know how to find.
I have great hopes for smaller countries trying out UBI. Nowadays the US is far too slow with implementing policies that are proven in other places (e.g. healthcare).
Didn't they already try this in North Korea?
No; when are you thinking of? [0] gives a good overview of the North Korean struggles over the past few decades, going back to the Korean War. You might be thinking of the famine in the 1990s, when the government took total control over food supplies. However, this was not UBI. It was not cash handouts but food handouts, and it was not a supplementary diet but a restriction on total food per household.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXaIpTj3vOs
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXaIpTj3vOs
This is probably one reason why the US republican party refuses to provide the necessary economic stimulus payments--they don't want the masses to get a taste of a kinder, more just society.
They also don't want to start a new welfare program that would cost trillions a year...
It's actually the fiscally conservative thing to do. Every study around social programs show they grow the economy more than they cost it. But it's hard to get folks to release their "crabs in a bucket" mentality.
> It's actually the fiscally conservative thing to do. Every study around social programs show they grow the economy more than they cost it.
The idea that government spending somehow manages to pay itself back is the complete opposite of fiscal conservatism, at least in my understanding.
The idea that government spending somehow manages to pay itself back is the complete opposite of fiscal conservatism, at least in my understanding.
Yes, you're correct that most fiscal conservatives often go down the naive and overly simplistic route of proclaiming "all spending bad".
But that's why people need to take a critical look at things. It's not about the short term, but the long term. Taking care of the populace is akin to investing.
Do fiscal conservatives think there is a finite amount of wealth? I'd wager that most don't. Otherwise they'd more inclined to socialism or communism, possibly clamoring to "eat the rich".
From there, one can start thinking about "how is wealth created?" and realize that social programs lead to more wealth creation in the long term. Sure, we spend money now to help that kid eat a warm meal or receive a better education, but 10 years from now he'll contribute back far more wealth than was spent. Perhaps they become a doctor, saving countless lives (each of which also contribute to "wealth" in their own way). Or perhaps they become an inventor, an engineer? Who knows, but studies have shown that social programs do, in fact, pay off.
So yes, in the immediate it isn't "fiscally conservative" according to some narrow and overly strict definition, but in the long term it is fiscally conservative. Social programs are an investment in humanity's future, and they end up paying numerous dividends in the long run. Wealth, health, community, happiness, progress. What's not to love?
But that's why people need to take a critical look at things. It's not about the short term, but the long term. Taking care of the populace is akin to investing.
Do fiscal conservatives think there is a finite amount of wealth? I'd wager that most don't. Otherwise they'd more inclined to socialism or communism, possibly clamoring to "eat the rich".
From there, one can start thinking about "how is wealth created?" and realize that social programs lead to more wealth creation in the long term. Sure, we spend money now to help that kid eat a warm meal or receive a better education, but 10 years from now he'll contribute back far more wealth than was spent. Perhaps they become a doctor, saving countless lives (each of which also contribute to "wealth" in their own way). Or perhaps they become an inventor, an engineer? Who knows, but studies have shown that social programs do, in fact, pay off.
So yes, in the immediate it isn't "fiscally conservative" according to some narrow and overly strict definition, but in the long term it is fiscally conservative. Social programs are an investment in humanity's future, and they end up paying numerous dividends in the long run. Wealth, health, community, happiness, progress. What's not to love?
You're right, but it seems a little hypocritical since they have no problem giving money to large corporations and "small businesses".
Helicopter money also stimulates the economy.
Helicopter money also stimulates the economy.
Actually it won't cost that much if yout have the proper way of paying for it. If we implement a VAT like Andrew Yang's proposal, you can pay for it. Also you have to think how much we waste right now with current welfare and the productivity gains we will get if people have a reliable basic income.
Yes. They would prefer to spend those trillions on "War on X" and bailing out constituents who vote for them...
God those awful Republicans and their wars. Too bad the current democratic presidential candidate was the person that drummed up support for the invasion of iraq. How awful it would be if you could watch videos of him doing such...
[deleted]
How about actual war? The US military is a socialist wet dream: decent wage, housing, grants for education, life-long healthcare even after you're retired. Just as long as you're willing to risk bullets or IED, the government will take care of you!
Didn't they do this in April? After decades of saying "No handouts!", it was suddenly possible! Because the alternative was riots and maybe a November massacre...
Just call it a subsidy.
$430 every month doesn't go very far in SK and all that for only half the budget each year...
>"We cannot get to 500,000 won a month right now," Lee said. "But we can get there in 15 to 20 years by bolstering taxes on land, which is a public asset, carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels, and digital services developed using data we have produced."
Oh well just tax until you can afford it right? That won't have any secondary effects.
The article doesnt take a serious approach to analyzing the reality of these proposals and instead wants to push them as if they're realistic without mentioning the cost of living or anything else.
>"We cannot get to 500,000 won a month right now," Lee said. "But we can get there in 15 to 20 years by bolstering taxes on land, which is a public asset, carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels, and digital services developed using data we have produced."
Oh well just tax until you can afford it right? That won't have any secondary effects.
The article doesnt take a serious approach to analyzing the reality of these proposals and instead wants to push them as if they're realistic without mentioning the cost of living or anything else.
So I have one question with UBI if anyone can answer. What is to stop people every election cycle from simply voting in the people who promise them the most money? Couldnt that spiral our of control?
Because you still have the current group of people dead against it, those with money paying higher taxes, who will fight against it. The real struggle is getting it through the first time.
South Korea had an election in April putting said people into power. The election occurring during the peak of covid gave them the power to do this.
Their government debt is ridiculously small. I hope they go forward with this; universally country wide.
The current problem is that no basic income pilots have ever been universal. Perhaps universal basic income will be brilliant. If it is, whoever does it first will succeed.
Their government debt is ridiculously small. I hope they go forward with this; universally country wide.
The current problem is that no basic income pilots have ever been universal. Perhaps universal basic income will be brilliant. If it is, whoever does it first will succeed.