User:Aun-de/sandbox

Arguments for:


 * Reducing of poverty
 * Buying power and control over earnings
 * Inclusionary for all
 * Safety net for emergencies (for poor families)
 * Financial inclusion (bringing people to use banks) and access to formal credit! (this is huge for farmers and farming loans)
 * Stress reduction (Psychological wellbeing)
 * Government Efficiency (Administratively due to direct deposit)

Arguments against:

Some arguments against the distribution of UBI is a worry for conspicuous spending, especially for males of the household on drugs, gambling or alcohol since most rural bank account holders are male. Another concern is a  reduction of labor supply. There is a fear that an insured income would lead people to drop work. This theory, however, has been disproven in a study done by Banerjee, Hanna, Kreindler and Olken in 2015 who conducted a meta-analysis of government cash transfer programs in Honduras, Morocco, Mexico, Philippines, Indonesia and Nicaragua and found that there was significant drop in the workforce due to these programs. Similar results derived from an experiment in few villages in Madhya Pradesh, India. Another argument Gender disparity (Since more males have financial access). Other arguments against UBI is the costs imposed on banks in carrying out UBI since it would require more workers and more hours required to implement the system. Lastly, there is also a claim that replacing things like food programs with UBI would expose the population to more market risks. Price fluctuation will affect the purchasing power of the consumer.

Things to consider:


 * One of the questions being considered is weather UBI really be universal or weather there should be an income limit placed. If there is no income limit and there is an increase in total income of the population, does anyone’s purchasing power go up? Also, there might be resistance to the wealthy gaining benefit of UBI. However, if we impose an income limit, then there are targeting and allocation issues, further expanded upon later.
 * So, another question is whether there should be a work requirement attached to UBI. The concern with having no work requirement is one of moral hazard. It questions whether people would stop working once they receive a guaranteed income causing a reduction in labor supply. At the same time, if there is a work requirement, and people lose their jobs, their UBI being taken away would make the effects even worse and defeat the purpose.
 * Some things to consider if a work requirement or income limit is imposed, is how can we fairly determine this data and ensure equal distribution while not putting too much strain on the administration. There have been issues in the past with allocation of well fare programs as follows:
 * Targeting: It is touch to try and target only the poor and deserving. Weather it was self-reporting or more multidimensional – identification criteria, or government audits, there has been criticism from many sides and reports of corruption.
 * Misallocation: Many deserving households are excluded from welfare schemes due to misallocation.  “For instance, consider the states of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Orissa and Uttar Pradesh: despite accounting for over half the poor in the country, these states access only a third of the resources spent on the MGNREGS in 2015-2016” MGNREGS is a welfare scheme.
 * However, this issue is easier to resolve if UBI is implemented through direct deposits rather than through state allocation of funding.

A very common concern regarding the UBI is whether or not it should be distributed to rich as well to the poor. Most advocates argue that it should be a universal and basic right for every citizen.[1] Its function as a payment to everyone, rich and poor, is the very premise of its universality as opposed to just a basic income. Furthermore, many agree that the methods for determining who would and would not qualify are costly and time-consuming (open to corruption and system leaks) and risk leaving out too many needy individuals.[2] They note that a UBI can be an effective safety net for anyone who encounters a crisis, including those who are middle class. However, there might be resistance to the wealthy gaining benefit of UBI.

Another reason for making the basic income universal is more logistical. In order to segment the population and ensure that the correct people are receiving the benefits without corruption a large amount of administrative labor is required, in addition to infrastructure and technology in place to support it.[3] To this extent, universalizing is important because the potential for misallocation and corruption with targeting is considered too great by many. In this manner, there would be no administrative labor required to define and operate the poor from the non-poor. In this way, the result of universalizing is beneficial for the state and its people.

The question to consider is how can we fairly determine this data and ensure equal distribution while not putting too much strain on the administration. There have been issues in the past with allocation of well fare programs such as targeting and misallocation. It is tough to try and target only the poor and deserving. Weather it was self-reporting or more multidimensional – identification criteria, or government audits, there has been criticism from many sides and reports of corruption. As for misallocation, many deserving households are excluded from welfare schemes due to misallocation. “For instance, consider the states of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Orissa and Uttar Pradesh: despite accounting for over half the poor in the country, these states access only a third of the resources spent on the MGNREGS in 2015-2016” MGNREGS is a welfare scheme. However, this issue is easier to resolve if UBI is implemented through direct deposits rather than through state allocation of funding.

Where will the money come from?


 * Magnitude of middle class subsidies will cover costs of UBI, but eliminating middle class subsidies is a politically unfavourable decision.

Other considerations of UBI:

Another option is providing UBI as a choice to beneficiaries of other programs. People who receive other benefits would have the choice between opting in for UBI instead. There have also been considerations of UBI for Women as women are worse of in employment opportunities, education and financial inclusion. Finally, there is an option of starting UBI for urban areas because they have bank accounts, have access to banks vs rural populations, the infrastructure is tricky and they mostly have allocations through state.


 * UBI for vulnerable groups first - widows, pregnant mothers, the old and the infirm –
 * UBI for urban areas because they have bank accounts, have access to banks vs rural populations, the infrastructure is tricky and they mostly have allocations through state.

but this misallocation (through states) and adminstritrave strain problems.