I am a bit confused by reactions to this UBI study, and I am glad Zvi Moshowitz wrote about it with his usual clarity.
Yes, this was clearly not "UBI". Given the limitations (not a huge amount of money, for a defined and not very long time), the results are not determinative of anything.
But, but, given those limitations, the results _do_ …
I am a bit confused by reactions to this UBI study, and I am glad Zvi Moshowitz wrote about it with his usual clarity.
Yes, this was clearly not "UBI". Given the limitations (not a huge amount of money, for a defined and not very long time), the results are not determinative of anything.
But, but, given those limitations, the results _do_ provide evidence of the directions that the effects might go in, and my expectation would be that as we move closer to a real "UBI" that movement would be magnified.
This suggests to me to that we should continue to support UBI as a replacement for existing transfers, but mainly to reduce costs and unfairness within the current system as well as to mitigate the ridiculously high EMTRs that people can face today due to benefit tapering/ceilings.
Whether as part of such a remake of the transfer system we reallocate spending towards parents or we somewhat increase it in order to be more generous to parents, as Zvi suggests for obvious reasons, is a separate question.
But based on these findings it does appear that, even assuming that UBI was taxable income, in America the change will be fiscally negative whereas in Europe with VAT rates at generally around 20% and welfare administration costs much higher, it might be more of a wash if not even slightly net positive (probably depends on how hefty payroll taxes on lower earners are, but possible).
I am a bit confused by reactions to this UBI study, and I am glad Zvi Moshowitz wrote about it with his usual clarity.
Yes, this was clearly not "UBI". Given the limitations (not a huge amount of money, for a defined and not very long time), the results are not determinative of anything.
But, but, given those limitations, the results _do_ provide evidence of the directions that the effects might go in, and my expectation would be that as we move closer to a real "UBI" that movement would be magnified.
This suggests to me to that we should continue to support UBI as a replacement for existing transfers, but mainly to reduce costs and unfairness within the current system as well as to mitigate the ridiculously high EMTRs that people can face today due to benefit tapering/ceilings.
Whether as part of such a remake of the transfer system we reallocate spending towards parents or we somewhat increase it in order to be more generous to parents, as Zvi suggests for obvious reasons, is a separate question.
But based on these findings it does appear that, even assuming that UBI was taxable income, in America the change will be fiscally negative whereas in Europe with VAT rates at generally around 20% and welfare administration costs much higher, it might be more of a wash if not even slightly net positive (probably depends on how hefty payroll taxes on lower earners are, but possible).