Hey, @klopptimist,
I suggest Anecdotalist
1 Like
The Ontario trial had 4000 participants, and a control population of 2000 (monitored but using established mix of supports). Importantly, under the program, participants were allowed to work, which they would not be allowed to do under traditional social supports without substantial clawbacks. Under UBI, clawbacks were simpler, not 1:1, and occurred at a higher threshold.
Of the control group, none exited the support network during the portion of the trial period that was allowed to run. In the UBI group, 74% of those working when enrolled continued working. Of the 26%, over half entered education/training. Critically, it appears that roughly 5% of the participants were left in a position at the early termination of the program that led to them not returning to traditional supports. That is far above the expected rate for Ontarioās social support system.
Unfortunately, the project was defunded along with the program, so the data just sort of stops. Most of the participants not previously working also entered training or education, but the outcomes are simply not known. The original term had been set for 3 years, it appears some participants had made choices reflecting that (2-year training programs, etc)
I donāt have much sense of how Ontarioās system compares to the UKās in terms of relative standard of living.
3 Likes
Ever been abused by somebody carrying an iPhone because you wonāt give them food?
Yeah. using personal experience to discuss things. Seemingly unique to me.
I tend to use different data for thinking about social policy versus what I use for restaurant reviews
2 Likes
Iām not saying that. Iām saying that the results of a multitude of UBI trials show that when peopleās basic needs are met, they donāt tend to just put their feet up and kick back.
1 Like
The problem with personal experience is that itās full of confirmation bias.
You already believe that people are lazy shits out to screw the system for what they can, so when someone rocks up at a food bank in a Prius that is going to stick with your far more that all the people shuffling through who you barely notice.
This is why we shouldnāt use personal experience when making wide ranging policy decisions.
1 Like
Humanity in a sentence. Except those who really do graft for their family, kids, legacy etc. Iām currently putting the washing out in the sun drinking beer. A day off if you will. Feeling guilty about all the paperwork my accountant wants. The thing with confirmation bias is it works every way. Counting the hits and ignoring the misses.
Exactly. But one of us is ignoring their own biases and pointing out what UBI trials show, and the other is noting that someone once turned up in a posh car.
Iād hate my outlook to be that bleak.
Interesting that the results of the trials confirm the concept, no? Confirmation bias? Would you like a trite Yes Minister clip?
Thanks. Basically very few gave up working, spent all their money, upgraded their car and decided that shopping at food banks was the way forward.
I am a market conservative, very much in the Friedman vein. I absolutely hate the idea of people living cradle to grave at the expense of the state. That is what we have now. People get stuck on support rolls, and never seem to come off no matter how miserable their existence is made. My hatred of the idea is not in any way ameliorated by that misery, I donāt particularly hate them so it is not satisfying, it is just depressing.
If we accept the idea that we do not want people starving in the streets, and some basic level of support must be provided, the problem becomes doing as little as possible without producing distortions in the economy. Having an underclass stuck on support is more expensive in the long term. Our existing system absolutely fails in that regard.
Iād rather fund a young single mother who has made a dumpster fire of her life to get two years of vocational training as a dental hygenist or something and have her teach her daughter whom she is productively able to support than support her and her daughter (and probably more) in misery across at least two generations. Even if only works half the time, decades of avoided costs plus incremental tax revenue makes it work.
6 Likes
No, in that trial at least getting rid of the 1:1 clawback appeared to have a strongly positive effect. Obviously in well-being and standard of living, but also in trajectory out of the support system. Anecdotal only, but one of the participants who worked in a low-paying museum job was able to take an evening program to add some basic knowledge of conservation techniques, which led directly to her employer moving her into an entry-level curatorial position. The program ended before she completed her program, but in that instance she was able to continue with the support of her employer.
4 Likes
ā¦while bitching on a football forum about people not working hard enough
You missed the point. Surprisingly.
So did you it would appear! 
So letās do some simple arithmetic here with the flat rate 12% suggested by @ISMF1
Mr A earns the minimum wage +/- Ā£18500.
Personal allowance is Ā£12570.
He pays 12% tax on Ā£5930 = Ā£711
Mr B earns Ā£200000
Personal allowance is zero.
He pays 12% tax on Ā£200000 - Ā£24000
Yet people wouldnāt be happy with that, want Mr A to pay less and Mr B to pay more?
1 Like
if you inherit something, it should theoretically mean its been taxed already. to me thats untouchable.
if i want to leave my kid a ferrari, ill leave them a ferrariā¦its no longer the governments business.
you make the mistake of assuming anyone who inherits will become a lazy and mean hearted fucker.
its a great stereotype to cast, but its also unfair.
taxing inheritence would also be a deterent to innovation and hard work, and ultimately, would increase the number of people who longer see a need to save for retirement and increase burden on old age pensions etcā¦
nice injection into the short term economy thoughā¦but nahā¦not worth it for me.
2 Likes
Why does Mr B not get personal allowance?
1 Like