Study in Kenia.

Of 21.000 adults paying them ¼-1/2 of the income of a two adult household (22.5$). HABLAR
DE QUE ES DIFERENTE QUE TE LO PAGUEN MENSUALMENTE QUE ANUALMENTE.

Money handed to strings attached.

What makes it different is that it will last 12 years.

Suri says that her team plans to track everything from entrepreneurship to health,
education and nutritional status, with the help of a platoon of locals who will go
door-to-door, and do a series of short phone check-ins and some in-depth
interviews with village elders to get a big-picture view of the intervention’s
effects.

“It’s a poverty-alleviation tool. Participants can invest in riskier things because

they have their basic needs taken care of.

Proponents of guaranteed income schemes argue that poor people will benefit
more from unrestricted funds than from current welfare systems, which tend to
have stringent requirements that often leave recipients trapped in poverty.
“Universal basic income is about giving people cash without question, and
trusting that they know how to use it in the most-effective way they can,”
HABLAR DE LO QUE HEMOS ESTUDIADO EN CLASE DE QUE LA
GENTE NO SIEMPRE ELIGE LO QUE ES MEJOR PARA SI MISMO
(SON IRRACIONALES).

There is no clear definition of success; researchers try to balance measuring

potential gains in one area, such as health care, with potential offsets in another,
including education and labour-force participation.

Although such welfare systems have improved standards of living, most require
an immense bureaucracy to administer benefits and to ensure that recipients meet
strict qualification standards. Welfare critics have long argued that the
administrative costs are huge and provide limited positive results; in some cases,
they discourage people from finding jobs.

Progressive politicians and thinkers have seen the idea as a way to end poverty;
conservatives have viewed it as a streamlined welfare system that is easier and
cheaper to run.

a scheme related to UBI called a negative income tax. In this kind of programme,
individuals making below a certain amount receive supplemental money from the
government. But after early results from one of the trial sites revealed an increase
in divorce rates, politicians nixed the idea as being toxic to the American family
(to earn double negative income tax).

Another early test happened across the border in the small prairie town of
Dauphin, Canada. Revealed that teenage children in MINCOME families
completed an extra year of schooling compared with teens in similar small
Manitoba towns. Hospitalizations decreased by 8.5%, with the largest drops in
admissions for accidents and injuries and mental-health diagnoses. Importantly
for economists, who worried that the programme might encourage people to quit
their jobs, Forget found that employment rates stayed the same throughout the
trial.

In a trial in Zimbabwe, one year of cash transfers improved childhood

vaccination rates and school attendance.

The announcement in April that the Finnish UBI trial wouldn’t be funded beyond
this year provided a sobering reminder that politics — more than data — will
determine the fate of such programmes. The government pulled the plug before
Markus Kanerva, managing director at Tänk, and his colleagues had examined
the data to see how well the trial worked.

But even a clear win in these trials won’t necessarily indicate that UBI would
work in practice, says economist Damon Jones at the University of Chicago in
Illinois. Because they are relatively small and most of the funding comes from
private sources, the trials won’t provide a sense of whether governments could
afford a big public programme or whether citizens would be willing to fork out
extra taxes to fund them.

OECD ARTICLE

Latest interest in BI because of social concerns with growing inequality.

Risk of job losses due to automation. ALOMEJOR POCO A POCO SI QUE

TENEMOS QUE IR HACIA UNA FORMA DE BI PARA QUE CUANDO
LAS MAQUINAS HAYAN SUSTITUIDO TODOS LOS TRABAJOS
PODAMOS VIVIR.
Negative stigma associated with claiming mínimum-income benefits and other similar transfers

New types of atypical employment also make it harder to reliably assess whether someone is
working at all, so more difficult to tie transfers to employment status MAS BUROCRACIA EN EL
SISTEMA ACTUAL QUE SE ELIMINARIA CON UNA BI.

BI financed by abolishinf most existing types of xash benefits and tax-free allowances and by
making the BI itseld taxable so that the poorer still get a higher benefit of BI.

Additional taxes are needed because if we just take the actual amount given to the poorest
and spread it evenly it would be much lower that the poverty line.

You could set the benefits ath the guaranteed minimum-income benefits which is usually
belowe the poverty line.

Work incentives are still kept because BI is not removed when employed and even stonger if
yes BI and not tax-free allowances.

BI at GMI could be achieved in Finland, Italy or France, but not in the UK.
BI would bring down poverty a bit in Italy but would increase it in France and Finland
(countries with high tax-free tranfers targeted to the poor). BI would increase poverty a lot in
the UK.G

In Italy and France unemployed and early retirees would lose the most.

The poverty line we talk here means 50% of median household income.

The BI would bring large shifts in the composition of the income-poor.

Supporters of BI argue that it would play a major role in ensuring adequate remuneration, by
giving workers a better “outside option” that would allo.w them to reject low-paid
employment

BI does not act as an automatic stabiliser: since it is paid regardless of income or employment
status, spending levels do not go up during a downturn IMPORTANTE.
 Las principales características de la renta básica universal, que la distingue de
otras prestaciones ya existentes en la mayoría de los países europeos, son que los
destinatarios son los individuos y no los hogares o familias y el derecho a su
percepción no exige ningún tipo de requisito más allá de la ciudadanía, es decir es
independiente de la existencia de otras fuentes de renta y no requiere una
contraprestación laboral o que el individuo se encuentre en búsqueda activa de
trabajo.

FIGURES FOR SPAIN

En España 60% de la renta mediana en 2013 corresponderia a 8114€ early. That

would cost 380B or 36% of GDP. If only to those over 18yo then 310B and 30% of
GDP. If we eliminate today’s other social security (pensions…) we would save 9%
of GDP. So the government would have to raise an additional 55%. The distorsions
that something like that would create are unimaginable.

Also possibly Spain would become very attractive for unqualified workers.

Kimball and Shapiro (2010) estimated an income-work elastic of 1%.

Public spending in Spain would reach 65% of GDP, not seen in any developed
economy.

ELON MUSK PROPOSAL

"I think we'll end up doing universal basic income," Musk told the
crowd at the World Government Summit in Dubai, according to Fast
Company. "It's going to be necessary."

"There will be fewer and fewer jobs that a robot cannot do better," he said.
"I want to be clear. These are not things I wish will happen; these are
things I think probably will happen."

"If there's no need for your labor, what's your meaning?" Musk said. "Do
you feel useless? That's a much harder problem to deal with."

The economic forecasts for the next several decades don't bode well for
the American worker. In March, President Barack Obama warned
Congress about the looming threat of job loss, based on several
reports that found that as much as 50% of jobs could be replaced by
robots by 2030.