I think you're right at least to the extent that this complicates drawing conclusions. Another issue I see is that in this study we're talking about a single household in a likely poor community getting a basic income. This is totally different from a scenario where the recipient knows that everyone else in their community is receiving a basic income too. Imagine this: a woman in a poor community who works a low-paying job starts receiving a basic income. Her boyfriend loses his job, and he starts to rely on her for support. In a world where both parties have a basic income, she'd have an easier time eventually telling him he needs to get out on his own feet, but in this scenario, she's the one with this "extra money."
And what about border policy? You can't have open border policy + UBI together... I mean why not try to come to America then. I would I come if I had a chance to get UBI and live there, and millions, millions of others. Would the system still work?
Presumably any UBI system would be limited to citizens only.
In combination with open borders, you do risk having a class system, where the citizens have money and immigrants don't, but at the same time, it solves the issue of certain jobs not being worth the time of someone who gets UBI (and therefore being for immigrants).
It's a tough balance for sure, and one of the main arguments against UBI (accidental creation of a class system).
again showing that socialism causes division and tribalism. i dont want to give more money (currently near half my earnings) to the top 1% of the world (any american on minimum wage) over the current global charities I give to
I think you mis-understand UBI. UBI enables 'survival' within the country. It will just about pay for a room and basic food. You want to eat steak, you will need to get a job.
Look at social spending rates by government over time. It's typical that they rise, despite attempts to restrain them. Critics call attempts to slow the growth rate "cuts" and paint the reformers as heartless.
Richer society's can support higher standards of government spending. So IMO, the only metric that matters in Government spending is per person spending / per person GDP.
And in that context you see various growth and cuts over time.
However, even that is misleading as richer society's have a higher percentage of discretionary income and may be willing to pay higher tax rates.
Higher "standards" of spending? Is that the new liberal euphemism for higher taxes? Richer societies can spend more dollars, but percentage wise, there's obviously a limit. We'll find out in the next 20 or so years as the amount we spend on social services crowds out all other spending, and we can't pay back the principal on our existing debt.
Sorry, I mean if you keep the percentage of taxes the same you end up with more money. That often changes the perception of reasonable expenses. Police forces for example are often better equipped in wealthy areas. The high school football field may have better bleachers ect.
Nobody thinks it's important to add street lights in the middle of corn fields. But, cities have had various forms of lighting over time and increasing standards for lighting levels from the 1400's to now. US street lights for example could be perfectly useful for walking if they where 1/10 as bright as they currently are which would significantly reduce associated costs.
PS: Anyway, if inflation adjusted medium income was say 10x as much I could see people tolerating 70% tax rates as their take home pay would still be significantly higher than we have. AKA if average person make 500,000$ in inflation adjusted dollars then they might be ok with an after tax take home pay of just 150,000$ / year on average. But say government provided self driving cars and underground tunnel networks.
Because people lack gratitude for the life we have. (including me) No generation before has been so prosperous or lived so long, healthy lives. Now how do you solve that problem?
No I did not. Doesn't it come as obvious that people start asking for equal treatment? Or you just build new barriers and second class citizens.
If USA would pay UBI I would do my best to somehow become citizen, there is no reason for me why I shouldn't try. And there are over 7 billion people on the planet, I'm not the only one who thinks that way. That is why I raised the question of borders/immigration + UBI. It's very different situation when it is now for illegals and also people who want to become citizens.
On the other hand, since you're not going to be the only one with this line of thinking, it will create a potentially large incentive for other countries to establish their own UBI to prevent a "brain drain". (It wouldn't totally eliminate the draw of the USA's UBI, though, since foreign UBIs would likely be lower.)
