The reason no-one wants means testing is that it adds a massive bureaucratic overhead to the system, which actually defies part of the point of basic income, which is to get rid of most other, costly to run, social programs.
Basic income (NB not minimum income!, not negative income tax!) is not means tested at all. No means test period. Everyone gets it. From the beggar to the millionaire. This is a totally different concept to means tested benefits. The proposal is a so called universal benefit.
If there are conditions, it's not universal. The distinguishing feature of universal basic income in comparison to traditional welfare was that it doesn't have the disincentives to work caused by means testing. If you add means testing back in, you've defeated the purpose.
The sharp drop-off of means testing is precisely the thing that a basic income is intended to fix. The example cited isn't "basic income" any more than Welfare is.
Small correction. A basic income is guaranteed no matter what; there’s no means testing or anything like that. You can’t game the system because there’s nothing to game: you get the money regardless. You seem to be describing the system we have now, where you’re paid for results.
Sounds like a problem related to means tested benefits which could to some extent be avoided by transitioning to a universal basic income which has no such strings for manipulating behavior.
not enough money, not enough people and too short (you know its ending somewhere soon, so you´re not really free. and the participents still seeking for jobs, because the experiment is ending.). so this test is basically just donating a bit of money to random people, not a basic income experiment (for me at least).
I like the idea and I applaud money being spent to investigate this, but this isn't gonna work.
Testing basic income in an environment where BI doesn't universally exist isn't going to yield any fruitful conclusions. The conclusions will be caveated with "we gave basic income to people who's peers don't have basic income and that could alter the results". This is why economics is such a difficult practice to comprehend because behaviors don't work in a vacuum (read anything by Kahneman and you'll understand).
On the other hand, if this at least gets the population to think UBI makes sense, even if we can't unilaterally test it properly, then I think that's a good thing.
I don't think you understand what Basic Income is. Basic income is meant to support people who desperately need it as well as wealthy hipsters who just don't feel like working.
Means-tested welfare is indeed a program with the intent of "keeping people from drowning", but that's explicitly NOT what this is about.
NO basic income is a flat amount paid to everyone regardless of their income.
What you are talking about is called means tested in work benefits in my country. It is bad - for all the reasons you mentioned but it is not basic income.
Criticise basic income if you want (please do so if you are trained economist) but please do understand what it is before doing so otherwise you are merely burning a strawman.
They are not testing a universal basic income scheme. They are testing an unrestricted basic income scheme, for welfare recipients only. If the experiment is a success it would mean that welfare schemes will become less paternalistic.
Just do a basic income and forget about all these complicated schemes -- one for workers, another for students, another for entrepreneurs, another for retirees, another for single mothers, another for disabled people, another for farmers and so forth and so on.
If you insist you can make it means tested (either through income or assets or both), but in any event we shouldn't be wasting time and energy infinitely dicing up people in more and less "deserving" categories. The whole point of a safety net is to catch everyone.
1) I did not qualify the viability of basic income in my statement. I just gave my opinion on what the author might say on this issue given that he is highly critical of the financial viability of the US social system. (he wants to reduce spending)
2) YCombinator doing a test doesn't mean that it is a viable model.
You are mistaken. You are referring to the common welfare system that western countries tend to have which could be thought of as a minimum income but which leads to lots of bureaucracy due to the requirement for means testing. Basic income is different because it is unconditionally paid to everyone without any means testing.
If only people without an income qualify, then it is not Basic Income. Basic Income is received by everyone without any means test. The purpose is to avoid perverse incentives in which people on welfare see little value in getting a job.
reply