Responses to Commonly Referenced Complaints about UBI

Intro

A Friend On Facebook (Who Genuinely Wanted to Learn) recently asked me if there are any downsides to the UBI as proposed by Andrew Yang (here's a snapshot of what it looked like in December; in case it changes). Yang brings lots of good ideas to the table, and though I find it disappointing that he's backed away from a single payer healthcare system, I do support many of his ideas. One of his plans is obviously the Universal Basic Income (branded "The Freedom Dividend"). Below are some of the main arguments against his flavor of UBI and my responses to them:

"But won't the poor will just waste money on booze and drugs?"

The argument behind this is that only people with money know how to spend money. One of my favorite quotes about poor people is that poor means a lack of money, not a lack of work. The American way is that if you put in your fair share of work, you will end up better off than average when you retire (which we all know can't work for everyone based on the rule of averages and you know, what we see around us). The US isn't particularly known for sharing the wealth, and there are many people who are classified as working poor. I would argue that the question is phrased from a place of bigotry (purposeful or not) but I will answer the question behind the question, which is...

"Does the money actually go towards useful things?"

... and the answer appears to be yes! 57% of Americans can't afford an unexpected $500 payment, so we know that the $1000 a month would at least go towards alleviating part of that pressure that everyday Americans feel on them. In a study of UBI, it found that most people spent their money on food, utilities, clothing and donations; all either necessary or at least net-goods by any measurement. Still, some people will push back and say:

"Even if poor people use money, does everyone really need that money for nothing?"

Now this one gets controversial. If I they are conservative, it actually might be easier to argue for this than if they are progressive, but with that said: hear me out.

Founding father Thomas Paine once said:

"Land, as before said, is the free gift of the Creator in common to the human race. Personal property is the effect of society; and it is as impossible for an individual to acquire personal property without the aid of society" - Agrarian Justice

Which can also be looked at in the context not just of land, but of value of intellectual property and businesses. Facebook uses the data it harvests from us (with our "consent") to generate wealth which line Zuck's pockets, who then turns around and gives us nothing. Same thing with Google, Amazon, Netflix, etc. They reap most of the benefits because we have allowed them to continue to do so without asking for anything in return. While it would nice to go to Jeff Bezos and ask him to give everyone money, the fact of the matter is that he is a symptom of the underlying issue: we have created a society where a few can get rich off of the backs of the many who also cannot ask for anything in return. If we all get a UBI, the inherent worth the rich few receive will be shared on a smaller scale, as part of their dues for living in a society with people as nice as us to allow them to have the structure through which they acquire riches in the first place.

If you don't agree with this, here's another angle:
Getting this check is like receiving a dividend from a company that you've invested in. We (as functioning members of society) pay taxes and help our "company" thrive. This is just your fair share of the pie.

"But Won't Giving People Aid Create More Dependent People Who Won't Want to Work?"

I'd argue that very few people could realistically live on $1000 per month. In fact, $1200 is below the current US poverty threshold ($13,550 | source) and so I'd say that those who are able to would in fact be outliers. From what I've read, UBI does not even make people work significantly less. So, no it does not appear so.

"What If Some People Are Worse Off With UBI Instead of Current Welfare Benefits?"

Let's say that someone was receiving $1100 before from cash-like programs and now they are only receiving $1000 under Andrew Yang's proposal. Even though it is less money, I still would count a shrinking welfare program as a good thing, and I can argue that from a perspective of both a conservative and a progressive.

Conservative

Less people on welfare means that we are shrinking bureaucracy, and limiting what the government says you can or cannot have. It restores freedom for poor people and allows them to make the choices that are best for them. Let's use a slightly silly example: if a family can only spend some money on meat, and some on car payments, but they are vegans with a broken car then they are out of luck! Why should the government get a say in who gets what? Also, if we cut welfare and we give people money directly, we are cutting excess government spending.

Progressive

Alright, let's be real and say that welfare has the best of intentions (even historically so; with the word 'Welfare' even appearing in the preamble of the constitution), but the current welfare programs have some major issues. I have completely flipped on what I originally thought about welfare. Let's take something simple to start. I originally thought that proving that you are poor and need help is a very reasonable ask, but if you are trying to find work/take care of kids/survive, spending whole days of many months filling out forms and trying to prove how poor you are is
a) humiliating—lowering how your value is determined and making your economic output/input your value is dehumanizing
and
b) ineffective at catching everyone—13 million of the 40.6 million US people living in poverty receive $0 in aid. This is roughly 32% of US citizens living in poverty or around 4% of our total estimated citizens. Many people cannot prove that they are poor because they don't have the time, or they worked a tiny bit, or their state refuses to give them aid, etc.

Also, The Tyranny of Kindness has a lot of really good points to make about Welfare. It definitely does not catch everyone it's supposed to, and it has left a lot of people out to dry. Giving everyone a fixed boost without having to prove they are poor will be a net gain to our society, communities, families and individuals. I cannot hope to give it the same weight as what the book does, but I highly recommend reading the book (you can listen to the first chapter on the podcast UBI enterprise).

Conclusion

Even though this was only meant as a response to a Facebook comment, I ended up having a lot more to say about UBI than I originally thought. I intend on voting for Yang in the primary, but even if he doesn't go anywhere, I could not be happier that the overton window for UBI has shifted so far; and for that I am forever grateful.