Austin experimented with giving people $1,000 a month. They said they
spent the no-strings-attached cash mostly on housing.

A guaranteed-basic-income program in Austin gave people $1,000 a
month for a year.

On average, the participants reported spending most of the no-strings-attached cash on housing.

After a year, fewer participants said they were unable to afford
to eat a balanced meal.

People who received guaranteed basic income in one of Texas' largest
cities reported reduced rates of housing insecurity. But some Texas
lawmakers are not happy.
...
...
While the program ended in August 2023, a new report from the Urban
Institute, a Washington, DC, think tank, suggests that the city's
program did, in fact, help its participants pay for housing and food.
On average, program participants said they spent more than half of the
cash they received on housing.

https://news.yahoo.com/austin-experimented-giving-people-1-141522585.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024, JAB wrote:

Austin experimented with giving people $1,000 a month. They said they
spent the no-strings-attached cash mostly on housing.

A guaranteed-basic-income program in Austin gave people $1,000 a
month for a year.

On average, the participants reported spending most of the no-strings-attached cash on housing.

After a year, fewer participants said they were unable to afford
to eat a balanced meal.

People who received guaranteed basic income in one of Texas' largest
cities reported reduced rates of housing insecurity. But some Texas
lawmakers are not happy.
...
...
While the program ended in August 2023, a new report from the Urban Institute, a Washington, DC, think tank, suggests that the city's
program did, in fact, help its participants pay for housing and food.
On average, program participants said they spent more than half of the
cash they received on housing.

https://news.yahoo.com/austin-experimented-giving-people-1-141522585.html

On the broader topic of UBI, it will never work until we reach a star
trek future where production costs are close to zero with heavy
automation. It will be too expensive, and inflation will quickly
make the sum too small to live on, so eventually it would collapse into
"BI" which we already have in many socialist countries.

All experiments with UBI I have read about are tried in a tiny group, and
lo and behold, it works. But no one has ever doubted that it would work in
a tiny group. When it is scaled up to "U"BI that's when it fails.

Another socialist dream that will never work.

With that said however, Friedman I think has a good idea for restructuring government money in todays socialist societies to have a minimum level administered by one government department.

In sweden, you have 10-20 if not more government departments administering
tiny amounts of government money which have been successfully tapped by criminals gangs earning millions. So government money is never good,
because it kills human motivation and should be abolished, but in the
imperfect world we live in, one department and one basic level is a good
idea over the mess of most countries today.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 10:49:03 +0100, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

Another socialist dream that will never work.

What did the Bible suggest? Better to give than receive?

socialist dream

Where did Karl say that?

will never work

I'm not familiar with the underpinnings of this idea, but it has been
said that "Local and state governments and nonprofits are
experimenting with guaranteed income programs."

Experiment - try out new concepts or ways of doing things.

I would like to think these experimenters are aware selected
individuals will benefit, and others will not.

Btw, various governments have been "feeding" the rich for years, via
various means. One way is via pork barrel politics.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In misc.news.internet.discuss, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024, JAB wrote:

Austin experimented with giving people $1,000 a month. They said they
spent the no-strings-attached cash mostly on housing.

On the broader topic of UBI, it will never work until we reach a star
trek future where production costs are close to zero with heavy
automation. It will be too expensive, and inflation will quickly
make the sum too small to live on, so eventually it would

I very much doubt that. I think UBI would fail but not because of
production costs or (true) inflation. In a economy were UBI exists,
landlords will be the first to sabotage it by raising rents to bring
effective income back to where it was pre UBI.

Elijah
------
rent seekers gonna seek rent

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 06:18:36 -0000 (UTC), Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:

I think UBI would fail

I don't know the objectives here....

I do know there are some who can advance themselves if the right
conditions exist. In other words, when a ship is sinking, saving
lives is prioritized. In UBI, I'm not aware of the outcome expected

landlords will be the first to sabotage it by raising rents

Affordable housing has been an issue for years. I'm aware of "rent to
own" programs, and locally, this has been a good program for those
with decent incomes, not poor folks (cheap housing does not exist, due
to construction costs).

sabotage it by raising rents

Already has been done in many locations for various reasons.

On another note, if IRS "thinks" a landlord is not charging a "fair
market based" rent, IRS can take away some of the tax deductions being
used. Also, the old rule of thumb for a rent charge is 1% of
appraised value, so if house is appraised at $100k, then charge $1,000.00/month.

During Covid "era" there were landlords who pimped the rent because
they could. I also understand that groups of landlords (like investor
owned) were gaming the system to increase rents.

Some landlords are no different than the marketplace taking advantage
of a situation. Like the marketplace took advantage of a supply
shortage in goods, and then marked up their prices way over their
actual costs during Covid era.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)