People don't stop working if you give them basic income.

They do stop working two or three jobs to make ends meet. This is good, because it kills people.

They do stop doing the shitty underpaid jobs that no-one wants to do if they can possibly avoid it. This is good. Those jobs need to be redesigned because they're shitty. There are many happy garbage removalists out there, or cleaners, or retail clerks. It's not necessarily the nature of the work that makes a job shitty, it's often the incidental bullshit around it that makes it shitty. Making employers as a whole less motivated to keep their employees happy is the antithesis of basic human respect, and needs to be changed.

We have to get out of this bullshit Protestant Work Ethic mindset that work is about suffering and that we get paid a salary to compensate for that suffering. Work is what gives our lives meaning. For some of us, that meaning is found in climbing the corporate ladder, others enjoy serving food, others have a sense of satisfaction from their cleaning gig.

If the only reason you work is because you're paid to do it, find another line of work. No-one deserves that kind of misery.

They do, or we wouldn't have any retired people.

"Basic income" is just another way of saying "receive a state pension at 18".

The alternative is obvious - ensure that everybody can always sell their labour hours at a fixed rate.

If you have to give up your hours to earn money, then that is the same as everybody else. There is no longer a differential between the "unemployed rate" and the "employed rate" which eliminates the rate per hour 'dead zone' required to attract people from "doing nothing" to "doing something".

Most software engineers or equivalent workers could retire right now or within a few years with their savings if they kept their expenses at what basic income would give. Yet basically none of them do it, why?

The 'B' stands for 'Basic'. Most of us already work to get better things. That won't change.

Its a strawman that won't die - that the Basic Income is going to make people well-off for no work.

>The 'B' stands for 'Basic'. Most of us already work to get better things. That won't change.

To me UBI is like a pension because you're getting a monthly payment for not doing anything. Your point doesn't really refute that.

Might as well call a dividend a pension - you get that 'unearned' as well.

• I can assume they're just wrong, and don't understand the implications of what they're saying, ignoring other people because they're profoundly confused

• or I can assume, instead, that they believe the basic entitlement of all people is less than the staying alive threshold – i.e., that human life doesn't have inherent value.

I hope this is a false dichotomy.

And it's absolutely not a straw man argument to say that a UBI is equivalent to a non-contributory pension for the much younger though (unless you believe that state pensions should be too little to survive on!) and well-evidenced that the average person retires earlier when offered state pensions earlier, especially if (unlike many of the workers funding pensions) they've already paid off mortgages.

From what moral authority do positive rights originate? (a right that requires someone to provide you with a good or service)

From what moral authority do negative rights originate? (a right that prevents somebody from interfering with you or harming you)

Over the course of hundreds or perhaps thousands of years, negative rights have been developed successfully in legal systems around the world. We've seen demonstrable evidence that enforcing protections of negative rights results in a happier and more productive population.

Different countries have also, generally more recently, brought forth positive rights by various means- welfare programs, socialism, full communism, or otherwise.

People that tend to care more about negative rights than positive rights tend toward right-libertarianism. Positive rights, in a sense, require those who can provide to forfeit some of their freedom, in order to help those who require it. There is a non-zero risk that a well-meaning welfare or socialist policy fails in its mission despite good intentions. Many of the communist states with the most heartfelt populist movements have seen the deepest failures. So in the right-libertarian mindset, there is a risk of a two-fold (or perhaps threefold) failure:

-It promised to provide (positive rights) prosperity to all, and it didn't

-It had to trample on the negative rights of the wealthy to try to redistribute their wealth

-(more vague)It eroded many individuals' notion of self-determination in the process, and in doing so left them less likely to work towards their own values.

Separately, there's the important notion of what the "staying alive threshold" is. Almost nobody in G7 countries dies of hunger or thirst, and those who do were likely in a crisis not determined by lack of access. Statistically, life expectancy increases with income up to and past $100,000/yr. The spectrum in between is fraught.

Why should they use up their finite life for your benefit - unless you are prepared to do the same in return.

If human life has inherent value why do you believe that you should have command of a chunk of somebody else’s?

The capital endowment of society is already used up paying for those who are retired, so you can’t call in that.

Yes, yes, of course some engineers and truck driver and so on were involved. But one person for every 10,000 toasters, because automation.

The lie comes in when the equivalency is made between somebody getting a 'free' anything, and somebody had to sacrifice for that, or work for that. This is no longer the case, and hasn't been for decades.

Automation has made it possible to provide for almost everybody, with a tiny fraction of the inputs it used to take 50 years ago. But folks who's impression of what a factory is, or what work means was made in the 1950's keep exclaiming incredulously "Who will make things, if everybody has a UBI?!"

At root I blame the Protestant Work Ethic. Well-meaning folks want to keep believing that hard work results in a commensurate benefit. This has been a diminishing force in America at least, for decades. In our lifetimes it will disappear.

There won't be jobs for a lot of people to work to add to it.

Ultimately if there are fewer jobs than there are people that want them, then wages get competed down - particularly in the secondary job market where individuals are near interchangeable. Give people money and the wages get competed down further. Which is what we see with the few retired people who continue to work. Very often they will volunteer just for something to do.

Offer a competing public job and you get a different effect. People move to that job and earn a wage. There is no argument about 'living incomes' then - if you are giving up your 8 hours you deserve a living wage. Private employers have to compete to get labour, rather than having it subsidised. Private wages are held up - particularly in the secondary job market which is changed overnight from a 'gig' economy into a 'talent' economy.

The private firms at that level will struggle pass the cost on, because if they do then those on the public job scheme will be permitted to replace them. You can't do that with an unemployed buffer stock. You can with an employed one that you can direct.

The resolution process in the 'battle of the markups' is moved from wage earners to low capital depth operations that frankly add very little value and ought to be competed out of existence by their higher capital depth competitors.

A lot of retired people still work, despite not needing the income.

> the rate per hour 'dead zone' required to attract people from "doing nothing" to "doing something".

There's this myth again. People don't need to be attracted from "doing nothing". The default state of people isn't sitting around on their porch drinking beer. I mean, don't get me wrong, that's fun for a while, but it's not a long-term occupation. The default state of people is doing useful work that gives their lives meaning. We don't need to be "attracted" to that. That's the default.

I disagree. That rosy perspective comes off as being really naive

People really don't want to sit around doing nothing. They want to be useful, contribute, lead productive lives. Sitting around on the porch drinking beer is really boring after a relatively short while.

Again, if the only reason you're working is because you're being paid, go find another line of work. No-one should be that miserable.

> Again, if the only reason you're working is because you're being paid, go find another line of work. No-one should be that miserable.

reminds me of a great Office Space quote:

Michael Bolton : No, you're working at Initech because that question is bullshit to begin with. If everyone listened to her, there'd be no janitors, because no one would clean shit up if they had a million dollars.

Please tell me, who actually works because they enjoy cleaning shit up and not to just get paid?

Ex-girlfriend worked as a maid in a hotel in Broome while travelling. Perfect job, no responsibility, you could do it with a hangover, free accommodation, enough money to drink, an instant social life with the other employees. Stayed there for months until she decided she had to see other places.

I'm not saying they'd do it for free - well, possibly the cleaner in the UK (forgotten her name). But they definitely weren't stuck there doing a job they hated just for the money.

You can see it here: the number of comments saying basically "why should I work and pay taxes to support people who sit around all day doing nothing?"

This totally ignores the carers who don't get paid, but look after their relatives (and if they didn't, the state would have to either pay for that care, or let them die and confront some nasty truths). The volunteers who do god's work and never get paid (I'm an atheist, and I think it's horrible that we as a secular society depend on this, but I recognise the work of people of faith supporting our needy). This whole unpaid system of "work" that isn't "work" because we don't pay people to do it.

There is, as you say, a huge difference between "hating your job" and "doing a job to get paid". And it's a massive flaw in our society. No-one should hate their job. Why do we do this to people?

Forget Protestants, how about Mother Nature? You better reproduce and increase entropy of the universe, and who cares if you enjoy it? It's just reality (unfortunately for us).

> This totally ignores the carers who don't get paid, but look after their relatives (and if they didn't, the state would have to either pay for that care, or let them die and confront some nasty truths). The volunteers who do god's work and never get paid (I'm an atheist, and I think it's horrible that we as a secular society depend on this, but I recognise the work of people of faith supporting our needy). This whole unpaid system of "work" that isn't "work" because we don't pay people to do it.

I actually agree with you here. It is a shame they are not getting paid or some other advantages. UBI could help in this case, but I think there are other solutions that could be more targeted OR society itself could make this more efficient so that either they are paid or it's cheaper to have a service take care of it.

> No-one should hate their job. Why do we do this to people?

Economics explains why people will take on opportunity over another one. It's all about what they are willing to do for a price. And you know what else? If people are able to freely choose any opportunity they can have in a particular place and choose it, it means that it is (in their eyes) the best one available for them.

And it's also relative. There will literally always be people who are dissatisfied with their job if not just because everyone else has a better one (in their eyes).

Is the system perfect? No--hell no. We can help people change careers if they want to and increase social mobility etc., but UBI is not the only way. I think a targeted approach is more efficient than just giving everyone money

The reality is that any modern economy based on fiat-money have unlimited cash and tend to benefit enough from weakening the bargaining power of the entrenched elites though inflation funded welfare, that you can set the bar for how poor the poor are allowed to become without necessarily impacting the real world industrial/agricultural output, but because of dogmatic policies designed to facility wealth hording we pretend that we cannot really end poverty.

Another problem is that we measure societal success based on how well the 20% richest lives rather then on how well the 20% poorest live. which again support wealth hording policies that will eventually clash with the ideal that democracy, freedom and equally, should be available to everyone not just an small elite as was the case in ancient Rome or Greece(and to some extend The American south until ca 1970).

Why would this happen?

The rich and powerful do not have tons of cash. They have tons of assets, like houses, land, buildings, companies, boats, cars, etc. Inflation simply makes all of those things more valuable, so their wealth is not affected. Meanwhile all the extra free money that everybody else has is still not enough to buy those actual assets. Aren’t you pretending that supply and demand doesn’t exist?

The problem for the wannabe feudalists is the same that killed off the landed gentry, when workers got rights and privileges in the 18th century, is that land not worked is not really worth anything so they will have to spend more and more of their profit maintaining the productivity as people gain more economic power to live elsewhere or differently.

And cheap land is around especially if you break free of the large cities.

We haven't tied the value of money to the value of land. Land has value. If you want it, you have to pay for it. (Unless you are advocating for the government to seize all property.)

If the value of money goes down (which is what you said to let happen), then the cost of land goes up. On what basis do you claim that hard assets will decrease in value as cash decreases in value? Can you name some examples where this has happened?

Edit: I don't think you can, because the definition of inflation means that the costs of things are going up.

Stopping money printing is an interesting idea though.

If I'm reading it right, that's the opposite of what the person you replied to was suggesting:

> The reality is that any modern economy based on fiat-money have unlimited cash and tend to benefit enough from weakening the bargaining power of the entrenched elites though inflation funded welfare, that you can set the bar for how poor the poor are allowed to become

If OP wanted to claim the opposite, I don't see how it makes sense.

Remember that 50% is an majority and would be entitled to basically run the economy as they saw fit, and yet we have never had a case(outside of apartheid/slave states) where an majority did that.

What UBI represent is more of an re-balancing on the employer/employee power balance as it grant's the employee the power to say NO without facing complete ruin.

For UBI to work the presumption that people wont just retire to cheap housing in the countryside living on bread, beer and love, but for the most part seek some kind of meaningful occupation, which real data based economical models seems to suggest they will.

The problem here is of cause that everything about UBI invalidates any economic theory compatible with an moral philosophy derived from Luther and Calvin's (protestant) Punitive Christianity, which unfortunately is the base for a lot of modern economic theory.

When people think about UBI, they think about living on UBI and still using products and services of a modern economy. Not living off the grid in a shack bumfucknowhere and doing substance farming (and brewing beer, of course) on the side.

If people flat-out dropped out of the economy, that'd create another interesting problem. Who would use produce of those people who keep participating? Would participating people produce&consume enough to put together UBI for the folks who got out?

Going further... Off-grid folk would make bread & beer and those wouldn't be taxed. UBI-producer would make bread & beer and those would be taxed through the roof. What if off-grid folks kickstart black market and trade non-taxed stuff between themselves? While still receiving UBI from UBI-producers. Then it'd make sense for an UBI-producer to go shopping in said black market too :) Buying less products from other UBI-producers.

You could always import more, UBI exempt, workers if that becomes a problem. Of course that might bring some of its own problems.

On the other hand, workforce may be coming from another UBI territory with same taxation. What would happen in their former country? Would they still pay UBI taxes to it?

Because even with the "super high taxes" you'll probably still earn more than you would in your home country of Honduras or Mozambique or wherever labor will be imported from. People are crossing the border today for a chance to illegally pick produce or work low level construction. Making that easier will only make it more popular. Plus adding a clear path to Citizenship (say after working 7-10 years on a non-UBI visa) will only make it easier to attract people.

As to who gets UBI what happens when you leave a country with UBI, that is an interesting question. My initial reaction would be that you can only get UBI if you are a citizen or permanent resident AND live in the country (say a minimum of 4-6 month out of the year). If you emigrate you lose UBI, but that is a separate discussion.

In most theories I saw, UBI would supplement low wages and become negative only for well off people. So you'd have to pay a nice sum of money for someone to have same take-home pay as UBI jobless. This means UBI countries would need high import tariffs to compete with cheap import from non-UBI.

Now what would be nice is to work illegally in an UBI country.

Path to ubi sounds like a massive Ponzi scheme TBH. Come work for 10 years for an easy retirement. Especially if you can move back to your homecountry and keep earning UBI.

For higher wage, higher quality jobs it might be slightly harder to attract foreign talent, but even with a 20-30% real wage decrease from todays levels the US will still pay more than just about any other country for high end jobs, so it shouldn't be too much of a problem.

Come work for 10 years for an easy retirement. Especially if you can move back to your homecountry and keep earning UBI.

That is why I think it's important to tie UBI to residency rather than just citizenship. If you leave the US you lose UBI.

An absolute sum of money is meaningless in such discussions. In my whereabouts $40-50k would be easily top-10% of not top-5% earnings. Median is a better measure. But how do we calculate median in UBI society? Do we calculate every resident? Only UBI citizens? Only working UBI citizens? Or do we take median pay of today, look what professions it is and then look at what those professions make after UBI?

Personally I'm very skeptical of UBI. IMO it's not possible till all low paying jobs are automated away. Otherwise your solution would create a very unhealthy two-ways society. Sort of like Arab oil states today. Where locals live off oil money and lots of 2nd-tier residents from poor countries are in sort a sort of modern slavery. I don't see how a healthy democratic society could in such a way. There're too many different groups with different incentives.

However setting the levels of UBI is probably not hard part, agreeing how to raise it every year to adjust for inflation and other cost of living increases is where all the problems will come from. I fear the UBI will also require a more dynamic tax code (to control inflation, as postulated by MMM) that will be very tricky to implement politically.

As to the two level society, I think that is inevitable with UBI. Hopefully it won't be as bad as what we're seeing in some oil states, but it will be similar.

Personally I don't think UBI is good idea, but do think it's doable. It will however permanently change the country, possibly for the worse.

Existing salary laws already create a lot of opportunities for arbitraging. E.g. truckers and handymen working in expensive, living out of cars or cheapest houses they can find and then spending their time off (as well as paying taxes) in cheap countries. Country-adjusted UBI could make this even worse. While EU-wide UBI median would create it's own share of issues.

Any idea is doable if you throw enough propaganda and/or gunpower behind it :)

Re-designing jobs to be less shitty is one way, of course, but the reason they were not already done is not because the owners are evil per-se, but because it is too expensive, etc

See real world UBI examples in middle-east, where citizens get money, most of the world is done by imported labor, 2nd class citizens that are treated terribly, but their govt. and citizens are ok with the status quo.

So, here, we will have the worst of both worlds... - No money to pay for it ( No, the Fed printing press is not the equivalent of oil ) - More people to take care of.

--

> get out of this bullshit Protestant Work Ethic mindset that work is about suffering

Well, you created the strawman.

It is more about the values of diligence and discipline, no different from anything you want to achieve, like excelling in sports, arts, etc

Or simply because they don't have to. Too expensive is very often code for "Sure, I could change the job, but that would cost ME something and I still get enough workers without doing it, so ..."

An impartial observer will hopefully make predictions (driven by his biases, of course) but in a few years, use the hindsight to learn lessons.

Find another line of work, sure. Quit your job without getting a new one and expect me to pay all of your expenses the rest of your life, not so much.

The USA spends $1.03 trillion per year on benefits at the moment, [0]. Most of that will be replaced. That's only federal benefits - more is spent by states.

I don't think this covers the administration costs of policing the benefits system (but I'm not sure).

There's also the veteran's pay and benefits which isn't technically part of this, but would be less necessary with UBI.

It's roughly equal to what the whole benefits system costs now.

[0] https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CRS%20Report%20-...

What cities exist where you get more than $1,000/person-month in means-tested welfare?

Any benefit beyond the current means-tested welfare maximums from UBI is gravy; the main point is to replace means-tested welfare with a system that removes administative costs produced by duplication of function and perverse incentives created by fubding cliffs.

> Make people as a whole less motivated to work is the antithesis of economic prosperity.

Making people as a whole less trapped in dead-end jobs is great for economic prosperity. We know that people are more productive once they have a safety net that lets them take risk, e.g. there's a huge bump in people starting their own businesses - a big economic positive on average, but risky - once they hit the medicaid eligibility age. Or taking the time to retrain and switch careers - again, positive on average, but something a lot of people can't afford or don't dare to take the risk of.

What are you saying? That most government programs aren't working? Please share the data.

For a low-wage earner today, the choice is:

* Don't work, get $300/week * Work, get $400/week

Depending upon circumstances, many find the former option better.

But UBI is proposing an option like this:

* Don't work, get $300/week * Work, get $280 + $400/week

With this kind tradeoff, many more will chose latter option.

And of course the US doesn't actually have 300 M people over 18, 20% are under 16.

The number is feasible for the US, though it would be one of the larger spending programs ever conceived. But not impossible.

Social security is not means-tested welfare.

Why do you presume that? Its common for UBI advocates to advocate it (at least as it matures) replacing means-tested benefits; its a lot less common for them to advocate it replacing other things, including earned benefits.

But just from a cost standpoint, it seems unlikely that we could actually afford a UBI would that actually provides universal-net-income. In practice those making above a certain threshold (from actual work, investments, or pensions/social-security) would have some kind of claw-back baked into the tax-system. The system still needs to be universal, everyone gets UBI payments, so that we don't cause the perverse effects of current means-tested programs, yet in practice, many individuals would just pay-back the UBI in taxes.

The point of UBI isn’t provide a universal net income, that’s plainly impossible (at least, from first order effects; after factoring in induced economic growth, it may be possible, but it is still not the point.)

The point is to eliminate the welfare trap posed by rapid early clawback of outside income in means-tested welfare programs, and eliminate the inefficiencies of redundant tax and welfare bureaucracies. If you tie in taxes on capital income as a progreasive taxes on non-capital income, it can also be a way to mitigate inequality driven by progressive automation and other factors driving returns to capital and a narrow subset of labor.

No.

with P as “person(s)":

300MP × 1k$/P/mo = 300G$/mo

300G$/mo × 12mo/yr = 3.6T$/yr

Except that this isn't how UBI should be implemented. An easy way to do it is to change Federal income taxes. Make $0/year? your tax bill is -$12000. Make $10000? perhaps it's now -$10000. And at some point - probably $40000 or $50000, it's 0, and then after that you pay gradually increasing taxes, the way it currently works.

so in other words, you don't have to give this cash to all 300M people. T(Though you do need to account for the fact that having this option available will change people's life choices, if we're going to estimate the funding needed)

Probably we'd also need to raise taxes somewhere to fund it - increasing marginal tax rates for higher tax brackets, possibly coupled with some new tax brackets at the upper end, seems like a possible answer.

Some people, mostly people who don't like the idea of UBI seem to think you can't tax it back again and everyone needs to always get X extra every year on top of what they would have before. I'm not sure if they dislike UBI because they think that, or think that because they dislike UBI.

A negative income tax is exactly the same thing as a UBI in a system that also has progressive income taxes.

The problem with means testing is that it effectively raises the marginal rate, often to astronomical percentages. For example, the withdrawal of a $1000 benefit because of an additional $1 that pushes you over a means testing threshold means your marginal tax rate on that dollar is 100,000%. Of course the rational thing to do is to not earn that dollar, or indeed any of the next $1250 that it would take to get you back to where you started (assuming a normal marginal rate of 20%).

In a mature UBI system [0], food stamps as use-restricted means-tested welfare wouldn't exist at all. (Food stamps in their original purpose as a system of agricultural subsidies might.) Their function would be rolled into the single benefit payment.

[0] transitional proposals often keep other means-tested programs during the transition, scaled back as UBI scales up.

For example, a reasonable stepping stone would be for people to get their food stamps by default, but then be able to "pay" some of the taxes on any income they earn using those food stamps. This means food stamps are being reduced gradually and at the marginal tax rate, so it's fairer than just falling off a cliff when you hit a threshold.

If it was gradual withdrawal rather than a cliff, she could afford to take the job.

The UK's Universal Credit is supposed to be gradual and therefore work out to everyone's benefit. But in practice it has few of the good qualities of either UBI or negative taxation. Universal Credit has plenty of nasty cliffs, complicated rules and cruel penalties that push unlucky people deeply into poverty, and it also has an extremely heavy administration cost - every employer must file everyone's individual employment taxes every few weeks online and face heavy fines for getting anything wrong or being a day late.

If it is self-defeating, it is not more efficient. And we already have a bureaucracy whose functions include verifying income claims and adjusting net payments based on them in the income tax system, we don’t need a bunch of different bureaucracies doing that redundantly with slightly varied definitions and rules and paperwork that serve little practical purpose besides justifying additional bureaucracies and enforcing self-defeating funding cliffs.

It is possible that there would be fraud around pretending to be a person when that person doesn’t exist, or continuing to collect benefits for someone who is dead.

But “are you a live person” is much harder to fake than “did you make sure you didn’t do these 6 illegible things that would make you ineligible”.

When you eliminate means-testing in favor of income taxes and eliminste the myriad different definitions of income and assets for qualification for different programs and the opportunity it creates (and the incentive funding cliffs create) for specialized benefit fraud, there is no special “UBI abuse” to monitor for. You have to monitor for tax fraud, but we’ve got a bureaucracy doing that at society-wide scale anyway.

UBI could be a solution but has its own drawbacks. Progressive taxation without cliffs is another possible solution.

That is, you pay higher taxes but only from the amount above some threshold. That way, only the derivative of the tax rate has cliffs.

You mean with no public support? Because UBI is social support without cliffs, and typically paired with progressive taxation. So if you mean progressive taxation with social support and no cliffs, that's not an alternative to UBI so much as a long-winded description of UBI.

> That is, you pay higher taxes but only from the amount above some threshold. That way, only the derivative of the tax rate has cliffs.

That's (ignoring things like the injection of means-tested welfare into the tax system via EITC) progressive taxation and tax bracket marginal rates work normally. UBI is just adding public benefits in without introducing cliffs.

I have come to the realization that a perfectly free market is impossible as human nature and psychology dictates its self destruction. What is needed is a free market without the self destructive behavior. The five biggest candidates: export/import surpluses, excessive cash hoarding, rent seeking and cash inheritance [0]. The solution to these problems can involve a UBI but the UBI is never meant to achieve poverty reduction or provide bargaining power or whatever specific goal UBI proponents have in mind. It is merely a fair distribution mechanism.

Think of a speeding ticket whose payment is then used for a UBI. The point isn't that suddenly everyone can afford more things. The point is that a fine is a good punishment for a minor offense but the proceeds should not be used to fund the government lest it starts enforcing the law for the sake of government funding.

You can solve these 5 problems with taxation and fines and then redistribute the proceeds to everyone. The benefit will not come from the UBI, it will come from the fact that we cease self destructive behavior. Without the self destructive behavior we will be richer in real terms without engaging in a single hour of work. In other words, UBI is a good idea but not as a replacement for unemployment benefits.

[0] Cash represents a debt that society owes to the holder of the cash. Such a thing should never be inherited or held onto for long periods of time. If someone were to decide to spend all their money on stocks or gold and let their children inherit these tangibles, they would be acting in an exemplary manner as property should not be touched. As money represents the future property of others (it is not your property yet), it must not pass on.

As such, why can't people transfer cash to their descendants directly? What's the point of trading it for property, which can then be traded back to cash anyway?

> Universal basic income (UBI), also called unconditional basic income [...] is a sociopolitical financial transfer concept in which all citizens of a given population regularly receive a legally stipulated and equal financial grant paid by the government without a means test.

Adding a means test to ensure that only some people receive the income would make it non-universal. You're describing a classic unemployment welfare system, but proponents of UBI argue that a universal income is simpler to administer and creates fewer perverse incentives.