Dutch city of Utrecht to experiment with a universal, unconditional "basic income"

[dystopian]

Who says UBI has to replace all other forms of welfare? If other benefits are reduced by 50%, and you get 50% of "enough to live on" UBI, nobody would fal off the wagon.

True, but that *adds* complexity to an already complicated system of deciding who gets what in terms of benefits, which runs completely contrary to one of the big arguments often heard for UBI.

I think evolution is better than revolution. And as for the argument about reducing bureocracy, I think it's been greatly exaggerated because you still need to have some special arrangements for the disabled and such who need assistance beyond UBI,

The argument is that you wouldn't need those special arrangements since those special arrangements would be private outfits that are paid for using a UBI set at at least same level as the combined benefits/subsidies that currently allow the disabled to pay for them.

not to mention that politicians - even those who advocate UBI - are liars who love using "reducing bureocracy" as a catch-all campaign promise that they can never quite deliver.

While they sure do love streamlining things and fucking things up in the process; its hard to imagine how simply cutting everyone the same check each month would not drastically reduce bureacratic overhead compared to the current system.

 

[Jayjay]

I'd say that welfare without strings attached is big part of what the UBI is.

A big part of UBI is that it's universal and permanent. It is not welfare at all. Everyone gets it. Everyone can make life decisions based on it. This will not create that.

In my view, "everyone gets it" is just another way of saying that there are no strings attached. And while it probably does affect longer term planning to know that you will always get it, that's secondary to the short term incentives (or more accurately, dismantling of the disincentives that many conditional welfare systems have).

 

[Jayjay]

True, but that *adds* complexity to an already complicated system of deciding who gets what in terms of benefits, which runs completely contrary to one of the big arguments often heard for UBI.

(...)

not to mention that politicians - even those who advocate UBI - are liars who love using "reducing bureocracy" as a catch-all campaign promise that they can never quite deliver.

While they sure do love streamlining things and fucking things up in the process; its hard to imagine how simply cutting everyone the same check each month would not drastically reduce bureacratic overhead compared to the current system.

I don't see it as hugely more complex, because everyone gets the UBI part anyway while the legacy systems are wound down. I do agree with you that abolishing bureocracy is an oft-heard argument for UBI, and my point is merely that I personally don't find that argument all that convincing. The bureocratic overhead is only a small fraction of the amount of benefits paid and alone is not a make-or-break argument for UBI.

I think evolution is better than revolution. And as for the argument about reducing bureocracy, I think it's been greatly exaggerated because you still need to have some special arrangements for the disabled and such who need assistance beyond UBI,

The argument is that you wouldn't need those special arrangements since those special arrangements would be private outfits that are paid for using a UBI set at at least same level as the combined benefits/subsidies that currently allow the disabled to pay for them.

I'm not sure what you mean here. If UBI is not same for everyone, then it's not really UBI. Rather the benefits received by the disabled for example would be UBI plus additional assistance they require. Even if they get one check in the mail, it's still two separate systems because some bureocrat needs to determine who qualifies and what the costs are and so on.

 

[Bacillus anthracis]

Which of these are you disputing:

1) This experiment will measure how people behave in this experiment
2) This experiment will not create a society with permanent UBI
3) Ergo, this experiment will not measure how people behave in a society with permanent UBI

#3 is valid only if the qualifier "directly measure" is added.
That makes it rather meaningless, since almost no scientific experiment measures its variables under conditions that perfectly match the "real world" to which the science is always generalized. IOW, it doesn't distinguish this study from 99.9% of scientists consider sound science.
Show me an experiment that you consider good "science" that measures the variables under the exact same conditions as the uncontrolled "real world".

The meaningful version of #3 is that this experiment will yield data that predicts how various systems implemented on a permanent basis would differently impact how people behave. Nothing you've said provides any valid basis to doubt this. While the predictions are sure to be far from perfect (as they usually are in predicting behavior of complex systems), they will be far more accurate from this data than from existing theories. IOW, it is empirical science that for any rational person will be incorporated into and alter (even if to a small degree) their theories and predictions about what will happen and why.

Science is fundamentally about inference from observed data to unobserved instances, usually in contexts that are not identical to those where the observations were made. Short term effects are highly predictive of long term effects and rarely do the effects reverse their pattern between the two. Thus, unless you can present specific validated psychological mechanisms for why a reversal of the behaviors is plausible, then the data will provide the best most valid basis for what will happen in the long term, even if to a lesser or greater degree.

Your response is identical to a person who dismisses the GMO studies that show no harmful effects by saying that they have zero implications for effects outside the short time-frame studies and outside the very specific locations and narrow conditions under which they were tested.

I gotta say, I agree with Dismal on this one. You're talking about this experiment as if it's hard science. It isn't. It's the soft sciences of psychology and sociology. And I personally (for whatever that's worth) am highly suspect of the latter "science."

Being born into a given system gives one a mindset--a way of relating to the world as a result of that system. That simply does not apply here. All these people know that it's an experiment and that it can end.

Now, if it goes on for say 25 years or so--a long enough time so that people forget that it's an experiment, or maybe rather, they get so used to it that they don't perceive it as such anymore, then you'll have something. That will also allow time for these people to have children who will be born into the experiment and relate to the world based on the experiment from birth.

So there's good reason to be skeptical about why this may not tell us much about whether or not UBI will work. I think it's a great idea and I hope it bears out positive (as in good) results. But it's going to take a long time--a lot longer than a few years.

 

[dystopian]

I don't see it as hugely more complex, because everyone gets the UBI part anyway while the legacy systems are wound down. I do agree with you that abolishing bureocracy is an oft-heard argument for UBI, and my point is merely that I personally don't find that argument all that convincing. The bureocratic overhead is only a small fraction of the amount of benefits paid and alone is not a make-or-break argument for UBI.

That is true; but the abolishing bureacracy argument *does* seem like the one to most convince the Rightwing that would otherwise oppose it; which should be considered.

I'm not sure what you mean here. If UBI is not same for everyone, then it's not really UBI. Rather the benefits received by the disabled for example would be UBI plus additional assistance they require. Even if they get one check in the mail, it's still two separate systems because some bureocrat needs to determine who qualifies and what the costs are and so on.

Like I said; the ideal is for the UBI to be high enough that everyone, including the disabled, can live off of it; which isn't going to be an extreme difference.

 

[Jayjay]

That is true; but the abolishing bureacracy argument *does* seem like the one to most convince the Rightwing that would otherwise oppose it; which should be considered.

I'm not sure what you mean here. If UBI is not same for everyone, then it's not really UBI. Rather the benefits received by the disabled for example would be UBI plus additional assistance they require. Even if they get one check in the mail, it's still two separate systems because some bureocrat needs to determine who qualifies and what the costs are and so on.

Like I said; the ideal is for the UBI to be high enough that everyone, including the disabled, can live off of it; which isn't going to be an extreme difference.

Maybe we have a slight mismatch in understanding of who is a "disabled" person. I'm thinking of someone who not only is unable to work, but needs daily personal assistance, special accommodations (wheelchair ramps, prime location near services, etc.) and so on which would for a healthy person be considered almost luxuries.

I am very much against setting UBI too high because that means not only political opposition that could kill any UBI plan before it even gets off the ground, but also is a drag on economy because the rest of us (middle class in particular) would have to pay for it in form of higher taxes. To me it's good enough if it can meet the requirements of 99%. Or even 95%. I've said it before: A reasonable UBI is more or less what is currently considered a poverty level for two-person household.

 

[dystopian]

That is true; but the abolishing bureacracy argument *does* seem like the one to most convince the Rightwing that would otherwise oppose it; which should be considered.



Like I said; the ideal is for the UBI to be high enough that everyone, including the disabled, can live off of it; which isn't going to be an extreme difference.

Maybe we have a slight mismatch in understanding of who is a "disabled" person. I'm thinking of someone who not only is unable to work, but needs daily personal assistance, special accommodations (wheelchair ramps, prime location near services, etc.) and so on which would for a healthy person be considered almost luxuries.

Alright, but that's still supposed to be covered under present disability welfare; imperfectly so, admittedly, but I don't see how the existence of this group somehow means you'd need a separate layer of the system in order to provide for these people; if the UBI is high enough, then their personalized care should be covered, no?

I am very much against setting UBI too high because that means not only political opposition that could kill any UBI plan before it even gets off the ground, but also is a drag on economy because the rest of us (middle class in particular) would have to pay for it in form of higher taxes. To me it's good enough if it can meet the requirements of 99%. Or even 95%. I've said it before: A reasonable UBI is more or less what is currently considered a poverty level for two-person household.

I don't fundamentally disagree; but I'm nonetheless leery of this kind of thinking because if you don't commit to meeting everyone's needs, then the numbers of people helped becomes entirely arbitrary. You've already allowed for this yourself. "meet the requirements of 99%. Or even 95%"; once you're willing to compromise on that, why not 90% why not 75%?. They could easily decide not to go with a sum that enables *anyone* to pay their living expenses when they're unemployed... which means it really wouldn't be a basic income at all and would only create more problems than it's meant to solve.

So, while you're right *in theory*... I'm not sure I'd trust my (or any) government to follow through in practice.

 

[bilby]

There is a blurry line dividing welfare from medical care when it comes to services for the disabled.

If someone needs public money to eat, or to get a roof over their head, that's welfare. The cost of the minimal requirements for life are much the same for anyone, so a flat sum per capita is reasonable and sensible.

If they need public money to pay for surgery, anaesthesia, nursing care and hospital accommodation, that's not generally considered to be welfare, but rather is a separate 'healthcare' cost to the government. It is paid on a patient by patient basis, set by the medical needs of the individual, not by any idea of equal funds per capita.

If their reason for needing more public money for, say, transportation than is needed by the average citizen, is that they have a medical condition - a disability - then I would argue that from the perspective of UBI provision, that is not a welfare payment, but rather is a healthcare cost, where the authorities delegate the details of the spending to the patient, by paying them cash; rather than to a medical professional, who spends the money to provide a service to the patient.

 

[Jayjay]

Maybe we have a slight mismatch in understanding of who is a "disabled" person. I'm thinking of someone who not only is unable to work, but needs daily personal assistance, special accommodations (wheelchair ramps, prime location near services, etc.) and so on which would for a healthy person be considered almost luxuries.

Alright, but that's still supposed to be covered under present disability welfare; imperfectly so, admittedly, but I don't see how the existence of this group somehow means you'd need a separate layer of the system in order to provide for these people; if the UBI is high enough, then their personalized care should be covered, no?

If you haven't noticed it, I've been arguing that UBI should not be high enough. I think on this we can just agree that we have slight difference of opinion on this. I favour smallest possible UBI (at least as starting point) that is enough to afford a healthy person means to survive, but no more.

I am very much against setting UBI too high because that means not only political opposition that could kill any UBI plan before it even gets off the ground, but also is a drag on economy because the rest of us (middle class in particular) would have to pay for it in form of higher taxes. To me it's good enough if it can meet the requirements of 99%. Or even 95%. I've said it before: A reasonable UBI is more or less what is currently considered a poverty level for two-person household.

I don't fundamentally disagree; but I'm nonetheless leery of this kind of thinking because if you don't commit to meeting everyone's needs, then the numbers of people helped becomes entirely arbitrary. You've already allowed for this yourself. "meet the requirements of 99%. Or even 95%"; once you're willing to compromise on that, why not 90% why not 75%?. They could easily decide not to go with a sum that enables *anyone* to pay their living expenses when they're unemployed... which means it really wouldn't be a basic income at all and would only create more problems than it's meant to solve.

So, while you're right *in theory*... I'm not sure I'd trust my (or any) government to follow through in practice.

Well, thats what I'm saying... 75% is better than 50% which is better than 0%. I don't see that creating new problems, it's just that part of the old problems would still remain.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There is a blurry line dividing welfare from medical care when it comes to services for the disabled.

If someone needs public money to eat, or to get a roof over their head, that's welfare. The cost of the minimal requirements for life are much the same for anyone, so a flat sum per capita is reasonable and sensible.

If they need public money to pay for surgery, anaesthesia, nursing care and hospital accommodation, that's not generally considered to be welfare, but rather is a separate 'healthcare' cost to the government. It is paid on a patient by patient basis, set by the medical needs of the individual, not by any idea of equal funds per capita.

If their reason for needing more public money for, say, transportation than is needed by the average citizen, is that they have a medical condition - a disability - then I would argue that from the perspective of UBI provision, that is not a welfare payment, but rather is a healthcare cost, where the authorities delegate the details of the spending to the patient, by paying them cash; rather than to a medical professional, who spends the money to provide a service to the patient.

Yeah, universal income systems can't replace medical/disability support because of this. They could remove most everything else, though. No "welfare", no unemployment, no minimum wage etc.

 

[dystopian]

Well, thats what I'm saying... 75% is better than 50% which is better than 0%. I don't see that creating new problems, it's just that part of the old problems would still remain.

It's a slippery slope, which is a major problem in and of itself. It becomes far too easy to say "well, it helps *some* people, so let's just forget about all those other people"; that may not be the intent, but it could easily lead to that down the line. That's why one should ideally go all in from the get go, to avoid that kind of deterioration; or at the very least set some hard targets.

Incidentally, in a previous post you said that a reasonable UBI is what is considered poverty level for a 2 person household. This would actually not be far off from the UBI figures I've used. The poverty line in European countries is established as being 60% of the Median adult income; which yields a net sum of 1040 euros a month for a single individual and a net sum of 1430 euros a month for a two person household; that's after taxes. I'm not sure if what you mean is 1430 euros per month per person, or if you mean 715 euros a month per person (dividing the two person household sum by two). Absolutely nobody is talking about the latter. The only figures in the national Dutch conversations about it that I've heard thrown around are either about a 1000 euros (net income poverty line) or 1500 or so euros (representing the net sums of certain levels of welfare + subsidies). 715 euros a month per person would be useless as a basic income: nobody can live off that here.

 

[Jayjay]

Well, thats what I'm saying... 75% is better than 50% which is better than 0%. I don't see that creating new problems, it's just that part of the old problems would still remain.

It's a slippery slope, which is a major problem in and of itself. It becomes far too easy to say "well, it helps *some* people, so let's just forget about all those other people"; that may not be the intent, but it could easily lead to that down the line. That's why one should ideally go all in from the get go, to avoid that kind of deterioration; or at the very least set some hard targets.

Incidentally, in a previous post you said that a reasonable UBI is what is considered poverty level for a 2 person household. This would actually not be far off from the UBI figures I've used. The poverty line in European countries is established as being 60% of the Median adult income; which yields a net sum of 1040 euros a month for a single individual and a net sum of 1430 euros a month for a two person household; that's after taxes. I'm not sure if what you mean is 1430 euros per month per person, or if you mean 715 euros a month per person (dividing the two person household sum by two). Absolutely nobody is talking about the latter. The only figures in the national Dutch conversations about it that I've heard thrown around are either about a 1000 euros (net income poverty line) or 1500 or so euros (representing the net sums of certain levels of welfare + subsidies). 715 euros a month per person would be useless as a basic income: nobody can live off that here.

I was indeed suggesting half of what two-person household needs, but defining the amount as an arbitrary percentage of median is not the right way to define a poverty level for purposes of UBI (which should be obvious if "nobody can live off that"), but rather, it should be based on actual living costs.

But in any case it shouldn't be less than what the basic income at legacy welfare systems is, otherwise why would anyone want UBI?

The differences in living costs are a bit problematic for UBI. I suppose that in a given country, the level should be set based on the bare minimum one needs in highest-cost city or state.

EDITED TO ADD; Basic income over here is currently 560 euros, and the local Green Party that has advocated UBI for a decades is talking about using that as a guideline.

 

[dystopian]

I was indeed suggesting half of what two-person household needs, but defining the amount as an arbitrary percentage of median is not the right way to define a poverty level for purposes of UBI (which should be obvious if "nobody can live off that"),

You misunderstand me; nobody could live *on their own* on half the two person household income. Or at the very least it would be really hard. 1430 euros net for a two person household income would be doable. 1040 euros for a single person household income might also be doable, though it really depends on where you live.

But in any case it shouldn't be less than what the basic income at legacy welfare systems is, otherwise why would anyone want UBI?

Yeaaah... that could be a problem, since there's not really a fixed sum there. It's based on a calculation with at its base the height of your previous salary. The maximum height of that welfare, if the online tools I'm using are correct, is exactly a net income of 1970,40 euros a month. If we go with minimumwage as the initial base, it yields 1106 euros a month (for the first 2 months, after that it becomes 1033 euros). So, the basic income would still have to be higher than half that of the two person household. A 1000 euros a month *might* be doable... if you already owned your own house or had extremely cheap rent; although I'd personally get into financial trouble pretty quickly if I had to live off only that and lost my rent/care subsidies.

EDITED TO ADD; Basic income over here is currently 560 euros, and the local Green Party that has advocated UBI for a decades is talking about using that as a guideline.

I don't see how that could possible provide enough of a basic income unless it comes with a hefty dose of things like rent subsidies; I don't think the cost of living is so drastically lower than in the Netherlands that a net income of 560 euros could get you everything you need to live.

 

[Jayjay]

You misunderstand me; nobody could live *on their own* on half the two person household income. Or at the very least it would be really hard. 1430 euros net for a two person household income would be doable. 1040 euros for a single person household income might also be doable, though it really depends on where you live.

I am using two-person household income as a rough ballpark estimate because I don't think that living alone is necessity of life. Practically everyone has the option to share a flat with a spouse, relatives, friends or failing that just find some strangers to split the rent with. If you want the luxury of living alone, get a job.

But in any case it shouldn't be less than what the basic income at legacy welfare systems is, otherwise why would anyone want UBI?

Yeaaah... that could be a problem, since there's not really a fixed sum there. It's based on a calculation with at its base the height of your previous salary. The maximum height of that welfare, if the online tools I'm using are correct, is exactly a net income of 1970,40 euros a month. If we go with minimumwage as the initial base, it yields 1106 euros a month (for the first 2 months, after that it becomes 1033 euros). So, the basic income would still have to be higher than half that of the two person household. A 1000 euros a month *might* be doable... if you already owned your own house or had extremely cheap rent; although I'd personally get into financial trouble pretty quickly if I had to live off only that and lost my rent/care subsidies.

Over here the added daily allowance based on previous income is provided by employment insurance scheme, and doesn't last forever. I imagine that such insurance would still be possible because that's basically paid for by the employees themselves and not the state.

EDITED TO ADD; Basic income over here is currently 560 euros, and the local Green Party that has advocated UBI for a decades is talking about using that as a guideline.

I don't see how that could possible provide enough of a basic income unless it comes with a hefty dose of things like rent subsidies; I don't think the cost of living is so drastically lower than in the Netherlands that a net income of 560 euros could get you everything you need to live.

That 560 euros includes rent subsidies. And actually, it's not adequate (there was a recent study that real living costs are in the order of 800 or so euros per month), but just bringing it up because it is something that is being pushed by real politicians as feasible UBI, so it's not a completely unthinkable notion, even if it does sound like in Netherlands you have higher standards.

 

[untermensche]

This at least is looking at something real as opposed to the bulk of US economic policy that is based on nothing but the base desires of the rich to make themselves richer.

 

[dystopian]

I am using two-person household income as a rough ballpark estimate because I don't think that living alone is necessity of life. Practically everyone has the option to share a flat with a spouse, relatives, friends or failing that just find some strangers to split the rent with. If you want the luxury of living alone, get a job.

This is just flat out wrong; lots of people can't find anyone to share the rent with for all sorts of reasons; nor should they have to. There's quite a bit wrong with expecting people to do that in order to be able to live. That sort of thing would never fly here, it's forcing someone's personal standards onto everyone else in a way that isn't accepted here.

That 560 euros includes rent subsidies.

Jesus, I could pay my rent off that... and nothing else. And my rent is considered pretty cheap.

 

[dystopian]

News Update

Looks like things are getting delayed. I'm not sure how official this is; but I've just read that the city isn't allowed to start this experiment without permission from the central government. So now they've joined forces with the other cities who want to start up these kinds of experiments and have asked for formal permission, and have expressed hope that they can start in January of 2016. Given the push, I'm hopeful that the government is going to allow it... the minister of the ministry I'm guessing that's going to be involved here *did* say not too long ago that cities should have more room to experiment, so there's that... on the other hand he *is* a member of the conservative-liberal VVD party, who I very much doubt like the idea of a UBI. That said, if they refuse to allow the experiments, it will likely become a lightning rod and might actually accellerate UBI initiatives; Dutch cities are notoriously independent minded and will probably find ways to arrange it regardless of what politicians in the Hague say.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

560 Eurobucks? That's 2/3rds of my rent.

 

[arkirk]

I was wondering whether to post about this. My thoughts as a Dutch person are, in no particular order:

• Utrecht isn't the only Dutch city that is talking about doing this. Nijmegen's city council has also voted in favor of an experiment with basic income; although that experiment is about replacing welfare with a basic income system that doesn't have welfare's restrictions; so it isn't exactly universal basic income, but the party that proposed the experiment (Greens) has stated their ultimate hope is for a universal basic income. Besides Nijmegen and Utrecht, other cities (Tilburg, Groningen, Wagening, among others) apparently have plans to do some of these kinds of experiments. An article published back in April revealed that at least 14 Dutch cities and towns are considering experimenting with Basic Income in some shape or form. It might be even more by now. Several of our big political parties have also adopted motions on their national congresses to perform these kind of experiments.
• It's good authorities are finally talking about a UBI/BI again; and appear to be quite serious about it.
• I fear that if it were actually universally implemented, various parties would try and subvert it by adding conditions, defeating the purpose. There's a strong conservative-liberal current in Dutch politics in the form of the ruling VVD. For the Americans among us unfamiliar with the term conservative-liberalism; the VVD are akin to what you might call neo-conservatives. They worship the free market, like small government, authoritarian, and oppose immigration. On the other hand, they're pro-EU, pro-seperation of church and state, pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-euthanasia, and pro-choice in general except when it comes to drugs because you know, the authoritarian streak in them loves putting people in prison. As one might imagine, the VVD is generally not charmed by the idea.
• I also fear that those same kinds of parties that would add restrictions would also keep the UBI below what people need to actually live and pay their basic necessities; on the same old arguments about it otherwise making people lazy... which might screw me over personally; and would also kind of defeat the purpose of a UBI in the first place.
• I'm excited.
• But I'm excited in a very Dutch fashion, which means that while I'm slightly hopeful, I fully expect this will die a quiet death somewhere along the way. Only to then be resurrected again. Only to die another death. Only to be resurrect again! So it can die once more. Ad infinitum.

You seem a man of little faith except faith that chaos will always eventually win out over order. We keep hearing from modernists that our labor is being taken from us by robots. The current situation is that we have a market based society run by geniuses that keep us all occupied and broke at the same time. This new system would be merely a kindly way of dividing the spoils of a world totally conquered by man. Then maybe we can find other ways for human beings to occupy their time.

 

[dystopian]

You seem a man of little faith except faith that chaos will always eventually win out over order.

There's absolutely no way to conclude that from anything I've said.

We keep hearing from modernists that our labor is being taken from us by robots.

Which is unfortunately a basic and verifiable fact.

This new system would be merely a kindly way of dividing the spoils of a world totally conquered by man. Then maybe we can find other ways for human beings to occupy their time.

That would be super.