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
    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?

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

        You can do a rough summation of it yourself. We spend about 1.2 trillion dollars a year on various forms of welfare. There’s about 260 million adults in the US. That comes out to somewhere around 400 dollars a month. Now the neat part starts.

        Say we set a goal to recoup half of the total using higher taxes on higher income brackets. Nothing horrible, no more than the extra 500 they got and certainly didn’t need. That means we got 600 billion back. If we continue the program we can do so with 1.8 trillion instead of 1.2 trillion. Because we still allocate the yearly 1.2 trillion dollars. So the benefit in year 2 is 600 dollars.

        In this way we could easily expand the program up to about 750 dollars a month over 5 years. After that the annual half back begins to approach the annual funding amount. Which means the program stabilizes around 2.4 trillion in rotation. 1.2 from the government and 1.2 in taxing back the top half.

        Incidentally this is also why it’s not an inflationary measure in the traditional sense, it’s not creating money. It’s just moving it in a novel way.

        Unfortunately, if you want something more substantial you’re going to have to wade into academic papers.

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

            I don’t have access to them anymore beyond contacting individual researchers for a copy. And yeah, I’ve got better things to do with my life. If you’re interested I would recommend finding article abstracts and then either searching the title to see if anyone has set it free or contacting the authors for a copy.

            In unrelated news we need to take the academic publishing industry out at the knees.

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

              You’ve already wasted more time making excuses for why you can’t show me the data then it would have taken to actually show me to the data.

              And if you think I’m out of line for asking, if you think my questions are too pointed, then you were never serious about achieving UBI in the first place.

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

                I’ve taken the time to give you in depth breakdowns and instructions on finding even further in depth stuff. Not doing a research project for you isn’t being unserious. The in depth math is particular to each proposal, which are generally behind academic paywalls.

                Asking me to spend a month researching the latest stuff and spend hundreds of dollars is straight up bad faith. I’m not your professor, I’m not your friend.

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

                  If you haven’t already done the research then what exactly are you basing your claims on?

                  I’m not your professor, I’m not your friend.

                  And you’re not an effective advocate for UBI.