Is this a generalized argument about all redistribution schemes?
UBI doesn’t fix everything, but inflation doesn’t do as much harm to the impoverished as it does to the cash-heavy. In fact, it’s a form of redistribution in itself. So a near-zero-starting UBI recipient does see some of their UBI purchasing power reduced, it’s still better than without UBI. The well-off are taxed more than they receive in UBI, either via actual taxes or inflation.
If you raise someone’s cash position from 0 to nonzero, then no percentage reduction brings it back to 0.
As to the rent-seeking (aka “poor people make poor money decisions”), it’s probably not solvable, but having UBI be non-attachable (future payments not assignable or collectable for debts, and excluded from bankruptcy proceedings) makes it a little harder for legible systems to take it away. Private corruption and human trafficking probably don’t get solved by UBI, but they’re probably not made worse.
All redistribution schemes would seem to have some risk of this problem, but it seems like a bigger problem if the redistribution is universal. Like if we redistribute wealth to 1% of the population probably not much will happen. If we do it to 10% I suspect we’d see moderate inflation. If we do it to 100% we’ll see a lot. In fact we saw exactly this in the US with COVID subsidy payments, as best I can tell.
Is this a generalized argument about all redistribution schemes?
UBI doesn’t fix everything, but inflation doesn’t do as much harm to the impoverished as it does to the cash-heavy. In fact, it’s a form of redistribution in itself. So a near-zero-starting UBI recipient does see some of their UBI purchasing power reduced, it’s still better than without UBI. The well-off are taxed more than they receive in UBI, either via actual taxes or inflation.
If you raise someone’s cash position from 0 to nonzero, then no percentage reduction brings it back to 0.
As to the rent-seeking (aka “poor people make poor money decisions”), it’s probably not solvable, but having UBI be non-attachable (future payments not assignable or collectable for debts, and excluded from bankruptcy proceedings) makes it a little harder for legible systems to take it away. Private corruption and human trafficking probably don’t get solved by UBI, but they’re probably not made worse.
All redistribution schemes would seem to have some risk of this problem, but it seems like a bigger problem if the redistribution is universal. Like if we redistribute wealth to 1% of the population probably not much will happen. If we do it to 10% I suspect we’d see moderate inflation. If we do it to 100% we’ll see a lot. In fact we saw exactly this in the US with COVID subsidy payments, as best I can tell.