Emailed in by Lola, more innumerate and illogical drivel from mises.org:
having outlined some of the obvious advantages
Where UBI Proponents Go Wrong
A universal basic income is not the god-sent welfare policy that it initially seems to be...
Maybe it is not "god-sent", but it is far better than the status quo. That is the point here, compare UBI with the existing system and see which is better.
It does not create incentive to work.
It reduces disincentives to work at the bottom end compared to existing welfare system (plus myriad other advantages - compared to the current welfare system) and that'll do for now.
It won’t help solve unemployment, and it will not alleviate poverty.
It will discourage employment a damn sight less than the existing welfare system. He's pointed that out himself. And assuming it is pitched at the same level as current unemployment benefit rates, maths tells us that it will do just as good a job at alleviating poverty (and real world trials shows it does better, for a given total spending).
The truth is that a UBI will exaggerate all of these factors in comparison to what would exist in a more unhampered market.
That is not comparing like with like.
There is even reason to think that it would be worse in the long run than traditional, means-tested welfare systems.
Load of shit. Why..?
First, UBI does not eliminate the disincentives to work that are inherent in welfare programs...
Yes it does.
... it simply moves them around. This program must be financed after all, and any welfare system, including the UBI, is necessarily a wealth redistribution scheme. Wealth must be forced from those who have it to those who do not. This means that at some point on the income ladder, people must go from being net receivers of benefits to being net payers of benefits.
Having displayed his inability to follow a logical train of thought, the author now lays his innumeracy bare.
Whether (and which) other taxes would be increased depends entirely on how high the UBI is pitched. For the umpteenth time, if it were pitched cautiously at current unemployment benefit rates and were to replace unemployment benefits, tax credits and the tax free personal allowance, headline tax rates would not change. Most people would break even give or take 1% or 2% of their income. People would soon adjust.
The progressive taxation that is necessary to finance a UBI means that the more a person earns, the higher percentage of their wealth will be taken from them. The work disincentives are therefore still very much present in the tax system. They’ve simply been transferred onto different, higher income groups of people.
Having not taken a few minutes to do any workings and establish that tax rates would not have to change anyway, he appears to rule out the possibility that taxes could be collected from land values rather than incomes. This has no disincentive to earning more/working harder etc, if anything, LVT encourages people to do more proper work (to generate the income to pay the LVT).
Admittedly, how taxes should be raised is a different topic to how taxes should be spent, but he then drifts off via some irrelevant wishful thinking and ends with this...
This matters because the number one cause of the high cost of living is artificial scarcity created and maintained by monopolies, cartels, and the government that serves their interests. Artificial scarcity imposed by cartels and a servile state is the primary cause of soaring costs in a variety of sectors.
Does he not realize who and what he is talking about? Can he not think his logic through to land/land owners, banks/bankers, holders of other privileges (radio spectrum, landing slots, patents and copyrights, taxi driver permits, whatever etc)? Which of course tells us where governments should be getting their money from.
Debate Magazine
