If 100 homeless people were given $750 per month for a year, no questions asked, what would they spend it on?

That question was at the core of a controlled study conducted by a San Francisco-based nonprofit and the USC Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work.

The results were so promising that the researchers decided to publish results after only six months. The answer: food, 36.6%; housing, 19.5%; transportation, 12.7%; clothing, 11.5%; and healthcare, 6.2%, leaving only 13.6% uncategorized.

Those who got the stipend were less likely to be unsheltered after six months and able to meet more of their basic needs than a control group that got no money, and half as likely as the control group to have an episode of being unsheltered.

Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20231221131158/https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-12-19/750-a-month-no-questions-asked-improved-the-lives-of-homeless-people

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Everyone gets x amount. As you go up in tax brackets y amount is subtracted at tax time until you get high enough that the entirety of x is reclaimed. For this there are several programs we can completely shut down and the same funding would provide anywhere from 500-1500 dollars a month. (Depending on whose math you believe).

      • affiliate@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        everything you’re saying here and in the replies makes perfect sense and is very clear. unfortunately, it looks like you’re arguing with someone who isn’t willing to listen to reason

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          To be honest, that’s the point. They might not listen to reason but it’s pretty obvious to any one else stopping by.

      • Melllvar@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        11 months ago

        That sounds like means-tested welfare programs, which we already have. UBI by definition is unconditional.

        In other words, you’re talking about “BI” but I’m asking about “U”.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          There is no means testing. The IRS has all the information it needs already. Getting rid of the means testing is where the bulk of the available money comes from.

          And as far as the Universal part goes, we can’t do that until we actually do it. Asking to test that is a bad faith argument used by the GOP because it’s literally impossible to do without actually implementing the program.

          • Cheerstothe90s@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            We did actually do it though, COVID payments. Remember how corporations immediately went on a money grab and inflation immediately kicked in and now we have permanently higher prices? The fed stated 1/3 of the inflation was directly from the universal stimulus money. Printing money for everyone has good and bad factors.

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              The Fed lied. Also, those one time payments were largely created money, not circulated money. Which is just asking for inflation. Finally, corporations got far more than people did and decided to ruin away with the gains anyways. The lesson there isn’t UBI bad, it’s that trusting corporations to do the right thing is bad and having strict regulatory enforcement is good.

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            The IRS has all the information it needs already.

            This is literally means testing

          • Melllvar@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            As you go up in tax brackets y amount is subtracted at tax time until you get high enough that the entirety of x is reclaimed

            You’re describing a means tested welfare program.

            “Means testing” is to check the recipients income (their “means”) against a schedule of benefits. Higher income=lower benefit. This is how most existing and historic welfare systems have operated. In what sense is your suggestion an improvement?

            Asking to test that is a bad faith argument used by the GOP because it’s literally impossible to do without actually implementing the program.

            I am no Republican. The comparison is downright insulting.

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              Means testing is far more than that. It’s entire divisions of agencies and reams of paper checking to make sure you qualify as poor enough.

              The IRS referencing your tax return is not means testing in any way, shape, or form like it’s happening right now. The money simply goes out to everyone and taxes are adjusted. There’s no forms, no sworn statements, no civil servant trying to figure out if your second car counts or not. That is all skipped.

              • Melllvar@startrek.website
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                I still don’t see how literally looking at how much money you earned to determine your UBI benefit isn’t means testing, but it’s not really central to my point. Yes, the IRS could plausibly do this, but where is the money actually coming from?

                These experiments are always small groups within a much larger economic system and the money comes from that larger system. It seems obvious to me that the recipients in such an experiment will thrive more. And even if it wasn’t, there have been a number of these experiments around the world and they all proved people thrived more already anyway.

                What’s not obvious to me is what replaces the larger system if UBI becomes the system. Can UBI be a self-sustained system?

                • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Okay let’s come at this from another angle.

                  If you apply for benefits you have to fill out the form attesting you need help. You need to talk to a civil servant to have that need verified. Then you need to fill out more forms declaring your assets. You will also need to do this semi regularly. And you will need to do this for each benefit program you apply for.

                  Now multiply that by about 30 million applications/check-ups a year, per program. That’s where the money comes from. That entire apparatus is no longer needed and the annual funds from that will actually be enough to run a UBI program. Then on the taxes end you can recoup about a 1/4 of the money sent out so that can be reinvested into the program.

                  As I said earlier the math has been checked. It works. We wouldn’t need to fund any extra money than we already do.

                  • Melllvar@startrek.website
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    So it’s paid for by the savings from not having all that inefficient wasteful overhead of the modern welfare state. That’s the grand plan?

                    OK, where can I find this math you speak of?