Combined Blockfile

AFF 3 A2: UBI Benefits 3 A2: Increased Wages 3 A2: Bargaining Power 3 A2: Small Businesses 4 A2: Innovation 5 A2: Increasing Investment 5 A2: Economic Freedom 5 A2: Gender Inequality 6 A2: Education 6 A2: Automation Error! Bookmark not defined. A2: Reducing Income Inequality 6 A2: Increased Productivity 7 A2: Welfare Problems 9 A2: Bureaucracy 9 A2: Inefficient 9 A2: Debt Burden 9 A2: Dependency 9 A2: Poverty Trap 9 A2: Funding Links 11 A2: VAT 11 A2: Carbon Tax 11 A2: Capital Gains Tax 11 A2: Welfare Exclusion 12 A2: Queer Exclusion 12 A2: Racial Exclusion 12 A2: Deflation / Japanification 12

NEG 14 A2: UBI Harms 14 A2: Inflation 16 A2: Socialism 16 A2: Redistributing Wealth 16 A2: Increasing 16 A2: Exclusion 17 A2: Single-Parent Households 17 A2: Immigrants 17 A2: Elderly 18 A2: Women 18 A2: Handicapped 18 A2: Welfare Benefits 18 A2: Automatic Stabilizer 18 A2: Specific Programs 18 A2: Medicaid 19 A2: Pell Grants 20 A2: SNAP 20 A2: Job Training Programs 20 A2: EITC 21 A2: Housing Vouchers 21 A2: Funding Links 22 A2: Debt 22 A2: VAT 23 A2: Carbon Tax 23 A2: Capital Gains Tax 23 A2: Counter-Advocacy 23 A2: Doing Both 23 A2: Private UBI 23 A2: Miscellaneous 23 AT: Basic Income Not Enough to Survive 23 A2: Emerging Markets 24 A2: Currency Depreciation 24 A2: Interest Rate Spill Over 24 A2: EM Default Risks 24 Turkey Collapse 25 Argentina Collapse 25 A2: Debt Harms 25 A2: Fiscal Stimulus 26 A2: Interest Payments Crowd-out 27 A2: Political Trade-offs Error! Bookmark not defined. A2: Immigration 28

A2 AFF

A2: UBI Benefits

A2: Coverage 1. Immigration DA. Fischer ‘18 of the GGI explains that a UBI creates a two-tiered economy between those in the country who receive a UBI and immigrants in the country who do not. This excludes the 13 million non-citizen legal immigrants leaving them in desperate poverty. It Commented [1]: CIS worsens over time as the CIS explains that 1.1 million immigrants enter the country every year. 2. Even if welfare doesn’t cover everyone. It has a much larger impact on each person that receives it. Cowan ‘19 of the CIS: the benefits from a UBI substantially lower than what someone would recieve from welfare. A single mother with 4 children would receive $52,000 under welfare while she would only receive $10,000 under a UBI. 3. Child poverty. Since a UBI only goes to adults over 18, families with children get far less money than families under MTW, as MTW scales up with more kids. 4. Even if not everyone is on welfare at this exact moment, the Center for American Progress finds that 70% of Americans fall back on means-tested welfare at some time in their lives.

A2: Increased Wages 1. Mogstad 19’ tells us that the UBI would be a band-aid solution of giving cash instead of enhancing skills or increasing bargaining power. He furthers that wage subsidies, such as the EITC- which the UBI would replace in the AFF world, are far more effective in raising the takehome pay of low-wage workers, encouraging women to participate in the workforce, and increasing productivity and equity properties.

A2: Bargaining Power 1. Defense/Turn. A UBI only allows workers to refuse jobs if they can survive off of a UBI as their only income. They won’t be able to because Greenstein ‘19 of CBPP writes that because the right will only agree to funding a UBI with welfare, a UBI would amount to $1,600 a year. In fact, Commented [2]: don't read this part if running this would reduce the poor’s bargaining power because Henderson ‘19 of Stanford University debt/deficit harms finds that the mean welfare package is $20,000 a year. Indeed, Coote ‘19 of PSI writes that a UBI will actually normalize low pay and precarious work because it effectively subsidizes employers who pay low wages by providing a financial cushion for their workers who won’t need as much income once a UBI is passed. 2. Impact Turn. Saab ‘19 of the Jade Institute: If you buy that a UBI is a replacement for work, it would be like an unlimited strike fund - workers could literally go on strike whenever they want, which would be disastrous for businesses as 1) they would be forced to keep increasing wages at the whim of workers and 2) it would destroy all certainty for businesses. This would cause widespread capital flight from America as businesses would move to other countries, thus crashing the economy.

A2: Small Businesses 1. Non-uq. Seamans ‘17 of Forbes explains that the US economy already has safety nets for entrepreneurs like unemployment insurance. A UBI wouldn’t further stimulate entrepreneurship because it would just be replacing these safety nets. Indeed, Ehrenfreund ‘15 of Forbes writes that benefit programs like food stamps increase entrepreneurship by allowing people to be risky with the rest of their income because they know that they will always have food. 2. Defense. Mitchell ‘16 of ISLR explains that small businesses can’t thrive in the current economic status of the US because unprecedented levels of market concentration have spread to every corner of the economy. Big business actively underprice and beat out their small business opponents, which is why small business creation has fallen to a historic low. For example, Neumark ‘05 of NBER explains that Walmart destroys local businesses by offering lower prices that small businesses can’t compete with, finding that Walmart destroys 3 jobs for every 2 jobs it creates and decreases wages by 1.5% in towns. 3. Defense. Hedreen ‘19 of Business explains that a UBI leads to complacency, meaning that if there’s free money going around, there’s no incentive to create small businesses or even innovate. Necessity is the mother of invention: no need to make a business means no new businesses 4. Turn. Seamans ‘17 of Forbes gives two reasons why a UBI will hurt entrepreneurship. a. TURN: Heightened risk taking by entrepreneurs means that the capital provided by a financier is at a greater risk of loss. As a result, financiers will cut back on the lending provided to start a new business. b. TURN: As a result of increased risk taking for small businesses, financiers can have trouble distinguishing between high and low risk projects, so they’ll just cut funding all together 5. Porter: oversupply of capital in the economy, the reason why business creation 40-year low is because of monopolies that outcompete small businesses. 2 implications: a. They won’t solve that root problem b. Mitchell explains that a UBI would only make the problem worse as the large proportion of benefits would go to large corporations which then lobby congress for preferential treatment to continue to outcompete small businesses. i. This outweighs any short-term increase in jobs: because in the long run, once they gain full control of markets, they raise prices of goods, completely destroying any benefits of growth. 6. Shiener explains that the economy is currently at full employment. 2 implications a. It turns their argument/Shiener: if we stimulate demand any further, it would cause massive overheating of the economy, where demand far outpaces supply since businesses can't find people to work, they can’t increase supply, and driving prices rise up causing an economic . i. Or at the very least, offsets any purchasing power from a UBI. b. It delinks their argument/CNBC explains that we have over 7 million open jobs and creating more jobs wouldn’t be beneficial.

Commented [3]: get ev from kev A2: Risk Taking not in blockfile

1. Seaman: insurance policies like unemployment insurance, and bankruptcy laws already exists 2. Freund: welfare is already a safety net – empirically increased entrepreneurship by 36%. 3. UBI actually decreases entrepreneurship. a. Seaman: a UBI encourages much more risky investment, banks raise interest rates on loans to compensate. And because bank can no longer distinguish between high- and low-quality risky projects, they stop loaning completely. Historically happened with bankruptcy laws.

A2: Innovation

A2: Increasing Investment

A2: Economic Freedom

A2: Domestic Violence 1. Ingrao ‘14 of Simmons University: Poverty is one of the primary factors that impacts the likelihood of domestic violence, as poverty is directly linked to increased rates of aggressive behavior that leads to abuse. This means whoever best solves poverty also best solves the root cause of domestic violence. 2. Turn. Pavanelli ‘19 of PSI finds in a study of the UBI’s impact on gender inequality, in developed countries, that the UBI intensifies a gendered division of labour, trapping women in domestic roles and severely limiting their opportunities. 3. NNEDV ‘17: 99% of domestic violence cases also include financial abuse a. A UBI for a victim in a domestic violence case would just be taken and misused by the abuser 4. NCADV: 7 other reasons why people don’t leave abusive relationships that are UNRELATED to finances: a. The fear that the abuser will become more violent after attempting to leave b. The fear of losing custody of children c. They don’t have anywhere to go (no friends or family to help) d. Religious and cultural beliefs e. The belief that a 2-parent household is better for raising children, even if it is abusive f. Societal reinforcement that “saving” a relationship at all costs is worth it g. The rationalization that the abuser’s actions are caused by stress, alcohol, and work- related issues

A2: Education 1. Defense. Hamilton of Brookings explains that even if a UBI can allow people to pursue an education, they wouldn't go anyway because only 8% of welfare recipients said they would go back to school. While 60% said they would rather get immediate employment.

A2: Reducing Income Inequality 1. Defense. Panavelli ‘19 of PSI finds that if a UBI were to be implemented without the support of existing welfare systems and proper social-protection provisions then it would exacerbate inequality and damage inclusive growth.

A2: Increased Productivity

A2: Political Resilience 1. Greenstein ‘19 of the CBPP explains that evidence shows us that universal policies don’t receive more support than means-tested ones. For instance, policymakers have cut universal policies like unemployment insurance and have raised the retirement age for Social Security. All the while, means-tested programs like SNAP, Medicaid, and EITC have witnessed large expansions because they are useful for garnering votes among the left. 2. Rector ‘18 of Heritage explains that over time, MTW spending has gone up at the same time inequality has increased. Even if there are occasionally small cuts, total growth is always positive.

A2: Creates Growth

1. Link in: During recession no growth or businesses to invest in, investor confidence is way too low 2. Link in: if deficits skyrocket, interest rates will rise, offsetting any increase in demand because businesses and consumers alike don’t take on loans. 3. Turn. Hurts the very bottom, 2 reasons. a. Rural areas lose out as low population means a UBI would increase market potential for cities, not rural areas b. ___: Average household receives 60k a year, whereas a UBI would only be 24k a year. 4. Defense. Archetto ‘18 of the Hill: if businesses see that everyone has 12000$, they will simply adjust prices to make profit and eliminate the benefits of a UBI. 5. Turn. Wharton: a UBI would reduce the GDP by 3.4% and government revenue by 6.1%. because it would reduce the number of hours worked by 5.8% since getting free money discourages work. 6. Defense/Turn. Shiener ‘17 of Brookings explains that economy is currently at full employment. 2 implications a. It turns their argument/Shiener: if we stimulate demand any further, it would cause massive overheating of the economy, where demand far outpaces supply, and driving prices rise up causing an economic recession. i. Or at the very least, offsets any purchasing power from a UBI. b. It delinks their argument/CNBC ‘19 explains that we have over 7 million open jobs and creating more jobs wouldn’t be beneficial. 7. Defense. Brown: 83% would go towards debt or loans, would barely raise demand 8. Even if growth happens, it would increase income inequality. 2 reasons. a. Pavlina ‘18 of the EEj: the rich can multiple their UBI by investing whereas the poor cannot because they will spend it on necessities b. Poor people will go from getting some welfare right now, to a UBI, whereas a rich person will go from nothing to a UBI, which is why it entrenches inequality. Historically, in Alaska, Sujata ‘19 of Science News: 21% increase in income inequality with its UBI. c. The implication comes from: Singh who explains that just a 1% increase in income inequality cancels out any poverty reduction created from any economic growth. i. Historically, Spielberg ‘15 of the Atlantic explains that income inequality increases poverty in the US by 7% whereas economic growth has only reduced poverty by 3%. 1. The reason why income inequality offsets growth is because it leads to high income families outbidding families for homes, causing massive gentrification with areas of concentrated poverty.

A2: Venture Capital

1. This argument is absurd. 2 reasons a. 12,000$ is just not enough to start up a business b. Middle income people don’t suddenly become venture capitalist, they’ll put the money into saving, not start investing in random startups 2. Their India example is bad for 2 reasons a. Startup costs are SO much lower in India b. Study defines entrepreneurship as simply ‘attaining assets’ like a literally sowing machine. 3. Rural areas get fucked: a. Low population means a UBI would increase market potential for cities i. You weigh rural poverty because ___: all indicators of quality of life are the very worst in rural communities, suicide rates, poverty levels, job opportunies, stress, literally everything.

A2: Banking 1. Non-unique. The White House in 2016 gives two reasons financial inclusion is expanding in the status quo. a. A Natural Rise. As the economy expands, financial inclusion is already dramatically rising in the status quo, up to 79% in 2013 from 56% in 1989. b. Fintech. The rapid expansion of the financial technology sector is expanding access to banking and financial services for millions of families, including those without a bank account. 2. Alt-cause. Klapper ‘16 of the World Bank explains that there are several other alternative barriers to access for banking that UBI doesn’t solve, including having a family member that already has one which can denecessitate opening an account, a lack of trust, and not needing an account at all.

A2: Welfare Problems

A2: Bureaucracy

A2: Inefficient

A2: Debt Burden

A2: Dependency

A2: Welfare Cliff 1. 3 reasons the welfare cliff isn’t true. a. Shapiro of CBPP: EITC and most welfare programs encourage employment, receive more benefits when you do b. FGA: income skyrockets so much more when you get a job, far outweighs any loss in welfare c. If their argument was true, families would park their income right before the benefits cliff off – however, the FGA writes that only 1% of welfare recipients are even within 10% of the welfare cliff income level, which means there are alternate reasons people aren’t finding a job. Ultimately, Sarah of CAP does an empirically analysis of all federal welfare programs and concludes that the welfare cliff has 0 impact on poverty

d. Prefer this because it’s a study whereas my opponents evidence is all rhetorical

A2: Welfare Trap 1. Defense. Shapiro ‘16 of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities gives explains that the welfare trap theory is now false because various changes in the safety net over the past two decades have made it a “work based safety net” that increases the incentive to work. Because the Earned Credit and Child Tax Credit rise faster as earnings increase than other benefits decline, overall welfare increases as people work more, which is why it is always financially rational for people to work while on welfare. Thus, Palta ‘15 of KPCC finds that people who use welfare generally get off benefits in a few years. For instance, 79% of people who received general “welfare” assistance left the program after two years. 2. Defense. Henderson ‘19 of the Hoover Institution explains that reforms made in 1996 solved the welfare trap by A) making it so an individual can’t receive welfare for more than two years if they don’t work and B) putting a five-year lifetime limit on welfare. 3. Steinberg ‘14 of the Center for American Progress explains that the disincentive to work for people on welfare is overstated; benefits only start to drop off when workers earn an income that is twice the poverty level. In fact, in an analysis of all federal anti-poverty programs, Steinberg explains that any work-disincentive from poverty had zero effect on poverty.

A2: Stigma 1. Gershon ‘18 of JStor after analyzing 1,400 patients in 10 states finds that people who held negative perceptions of cash-based welfare were only 5% less likely to enroll, and, in the case of Medicaid, potential recipients were not put off by the stigma

A2: Deep Poverty 1. Defense. Hall ‘18 of the Heritage Foundation explains that there are several issues with the way the Census Bureau calculates deep poverty: a. MTW benefits are entirely ignored. b. Significant amounts of gray or informal market income in lower-income households is unaccounted for. c. It misdefines people living together but not married and thus incorrectly calculates joint income. d. It only looks at income, so if a family has assets but a lower income for a single year, they would still be counted as in deep poverty when they may not be living in those conditions.

A2: Complexity/Undercoverage 1. Even if welfare doesn’t cover everyone. It has a much larger impact on each person that receives it. Cowan ‘19 of the CIS explains that the benfits from a UBI substantially lower than what someone would recieve from welfare. A single mother with 4 children would receive $52,000 under welfare while she would only receive $10,000 under a UBI. Greenstein ‘19 of the CBPP writes that if you took money from means-tested welfare programs and distributed it as a UBI, people would only get $1,582 a year because, due to political gridlock, the funding would only come from welfare programs. Thus, Amadeo ‘19 of the Balance writes that a UBI won’t make a dent on poverty.

A2: Funding Links

A2: VAT

A2: Carbon Tax

A2: Capital Gains Tax

A2: Welfare Exclusion

A2: Queer Exclusion

A2: Racial Exclusion

A2: Deflation / Japanification

1. Defense. Forsyth ‘19 of Barrons finds that inflation is up 1.5% in the last 12 months, indicating that there is nothing to worry about. This is because the US has a relatively young and growing population that continues to fill jobs and because the US population continues to consume more than they save, generating more demand than supply.

A2: Automation

A2: Mass Unemployment 1. Defense. Arntz ‘16 of OECD explains that automation studies are flawed because they assume that if one task for a job is automatable, then that entire job is automatable, which leads to an overestimation. In reality, only 9% of jobs could be affected by automation in the United States. 2. Defense. Snyder ‘19 of Stanford explains that automation only eliminates completely repetitive tasks, meaning that it only affects a small number of jobs that mostly have already left the economy, like manufacturing. The small number of jobs also doesn’t matter because Snyder finds that it will be absorbed into the expanding service sector that allows us to adapt to automation. Indeed, Shaban ‘19 of The Washington Post explains that in the next four years, more than 75 million jobs may be lost as companies shift to more automation, but 133 million new jobs will emerge during that period, as businesses develop a new division of labor between people and machines and expand other sectors. 3. Defense. Vincent ‘17 of The Verge explains that even if the jobs are lost due to automation, these workers are retrained and future generations gain higher education and social mobility. This happens historically, as when technology displaced farming jobs in the early 1900’s, the US government increased spending on education, and the amount of workers the age displaced attending highschool went up nearly 70%. 4. Defense. Bhugin ‘17 of McKinsey writes that automation is going to be a very gradual process because of the slow processes of technological progress, economization, and adoption, finding that we will most likely reach 50% automation adoption by 2055. Thus, Cowan ‘17 of CIS finds that automation is only likely to cause minor fluctuations in employment because our economy has so much time to adapt. Consequently, James ‘17 of Wired finds that we will be able to adapt to automation quickly as it slowly spreads across the economy and automation creates new jobs. 5. Turn. Clark ‘19 of Concept Systems gives three reasons why automation would improve the economy: a. Reinvesting company money. Earnings from automation would be used to hire workers in other areas, increase wages, and start new companies. b. Technological advancement. The workers creating and maintaining machines would have highly skilled values. As a result, more people will study engineering and robotics, and skilled jobs will steadily grow in demand. For example, when the first stone chisel was invented, it took fewer people and less work to cut things, but it created a whole new field of possibilities for what humans could do with the saved time and energy.

A2: Transitional Period

A2: UBI Solves 1. Turn. Neiwandt ‘16 of the Conversation explains that welfare benefits also help those who can’t work. The only difference is that a UBI isn’t progressive, so more money is given to people who already have jobs.

A2: Robinhood Paradox (MTW Collapse)

A2: Targeted Gets Cut 1. Non-uq. A UBI would also get cut by elites for two reasons. a. Coote ‘19 of PSI writes that UBI is another way for elites to further shrink the welfare state and reduce redistribution, getting it one step closer to collapse. Indeed, Piachaud ‘18 of the London School of Economics writes that as inequality grows, the rich in control will no longer support a UBI that benefits the majority while they get taxed. Thus, Greenstein ‘18 finds that increased pressure on the middle-class will make UBI infeasible. b. The Economist ‘16 explains a universal basic income would create tensions between those who continue to work and pay taxes and those opting out weaken the current system, ripping redistribution apart.

A2: Universal Better 1. Defense. If universal programs are widely popular like they say they are, they will collapse because they are unsustainable. Cooper ‘16 of the Manhattan Institute writes that a UBI would create a program doomed for insolvency like Social Security, sticking the federal budget with more unsustainable costs.

A2 NEG

OVs

UBI solves poverty better than MTW 1. Near Poverty. Chen: explains that 50 million Americans live just above the poverty line, ineligible for almost all welfare programs. However, Sherman explains that near poor families face the same difficulties as impoverished families being unable to pay for basic necessities. Luckily, a UBI would solve this problem by providing a livable income to 50 million Americans who currently get nothing. 2. Deep Poverty. Matthews of Vox explains that means-tested programs include work requirements, meaning the recipient has to work in order to receive benefits. This leaves people with no income whatsoever in two ways: a. The Urban Institute finds that poor Americans face obstacles to employment, including “low education, health problems, and limited transportation and internet access.” b. David ‘19 explains that there is a 5-year lifetime limit on receiving welfare, meaning that after those five years have elapsed, if a poor American loses their job, they are stuck with literally no income or support. Consequently, CBPP found that, over 20 years, the number of Americans living in deep poverty, an income under half of the poverty line, increased by 41 percent even after accounting for welfare benefits, leaving millions without income. However, Lowrey explains that a UBI would provide money without restrictions, ending deep poverty in America. 3. MTW not enough. Lexington ‘20 explains that the average family on MTW receives a meagre $4850, a UBI gives them 250% more money. The warranting is simple, as Edwards ‘07 finds that for every dollar spent on government welfare, only 12 cents goes to helping the poor. The rest is spent on administration cost and overhead. 4. Robinhood Paradox. Kasy ‘18 explains that because means tested welfare targets a small Commented [4]: For example, Kogan of Yale finds that spending on means tested welfare is at a 40-year population with low political support, it makes it easy for politicians to put it on the chopping low with Trump cutting support for Food Stamps, block. Thus, while welfare is constantly on the chopping block, a UBI would actually become Medicaid, and Tax Credits as just a few examples. (if they ask) more generous over time. Kopri of the University of Stockholm explains the more targeted a welfare state is, less benefits reach the poor, because there is decreased support. 5. Savings. Hamilton ‘19 of the Atlantic explains that Reagan imposed an asset limit of $1,000 for eligibility for MTW, leading 40% of low-income single mothers to reduce savings by more than $1,250. Crucially, Shi ‘12 explains that access to savings is crucial for insulating poor families, finding that just $500 in assets effectively multiplies a family’s income by 300%. It’s also key to breaking the cycle of poverty, as Shi continues that $500 in savings increases the propensity of poor students to go to college by 600%. 6. Block Grants. Schott 12’ of Brookings writes that the implementation of welfare has shifted to states, who are given block grants by the federal government to spend on welfare programs. Unfortunately, he continues that states treat these grants like blank checks, and redirect them for purposes other than poverty reduction. Overall, Schott quantifies that only 15% of funding from these grants actually reach those on welfare. In contrast, Clifford 19’ of CNBC writes that a UBI would be conducted solely through the federal government, eliminating the state bureaucracy. 7. Lack of Access. Hoynes ‘18 of UC Berkeley writes that while UBI would be used by everyone, participation in welfare reveals private information and is generally stigmatized, reducing the potential reach of welfare. Thus, Mintonlinda ’19 of Urban Institute finds that welfare doesn’t cover 13 million people in poverty. 8. In-kind Benefits. Tanner ‘15 of the Cato Institute explains that welfare provides assistance, but only for specific purposes, preventing people from making decisions based on their own unique situation. Tanner confirms that when given direct cash, people use it wisely, investing in themselves. 9. Poverty Trap. Tanner ‘15 of the Cato Institute explains that the welfare qualifiers test out of the majority of programs when they gain employment. Unfortunately, welfare sets up such a high bar of benefits that it is rational to choose welfare over work because living becomes so hard on a minimum wage job. This keeps families trapped on welfare as they focus on the short-term goal of basic necessities rather than seeking higher employment.

Near Poverty 1. Chen: explains that because they are just marginally above the official poverty line, these 50 million Americans are ineligible for virtually all welfare programs. However, Sherman explains that near poor families face the same difficulties as impoverished families being unable to pay for basic necessities. Luckily, a UBI would solve this problem by providing a livable income to 50 million Americans who currently get nothing.

A2: UBI Harms

A2: Inflation 1. Defense. Prochazka ‘20 of Chengchi University explains that a UBI wouldn’t create inflation because competition will always check back against increased demand. Because a UBI would create guaranteed demand, competition would increase as more firms come to the market to meet the new expected demand, creating increased production that actually decreases prices in the long run. This is why Alaska, who has had a UBI for years, has not experienced increased inflation.

A2: Socialism

A2: Distributing Upwards 1. Turn. Victor ‘19 of the University of Pennsylvania explains that while a UBI initially results in less money to poor people, over time the poor people amass more money with a UBI. This is because direct cash allows poor families to make smart investments that improve their economic status and families are not discouraged from increasing their income because they will still receive a UBI.

A2: Increasing Unemployment 1. Defense. Parijs ‘17 of Harvard University gives three reasons a UBI won’t cause people to exit the labor force. a. A UBI still allows for people to gain marginal benefit from working. Most people want to increase their consumption beyond their basic necessities, which is why people will still want to work. b. Wanting to work is based on your income relative to others. A lot of the psychological incentive behind working and gaining a higher income is to attain a social class that people deem respectable. Thus, people will still work with a UBI because they will want to increase their social status in comparison to everyone else. c. Another psychological component behind working is that it literally just gives meaning to people's lives; a lot of people would feel pain doing nothing in life. 2. Defense. Zunger ‘18 of Stanford University explains that a UBI wouldn’t cause people to give up work it would just cause some employers to have to raise wages. Now that a UBI is in place, people would be able to refuse jobs with bad conditions or difficult tasks that usually have low wages, forcing employers to raise wages until the marginal benefit of working is too high to refuse. 3. Turn. Goik ‘18 of the University of Wollongong writes that a UBI increases labor force participation by replacing welfare because welfare stops a large portion of the workforce from taking jobs because they would lose their welfare package and on net lose money. On the other hand, a UBI does not go away when you start working. Indeed, Marinescu ‘20 of NBER finds that Alaska’s UBI only increased the amount of time people worked.

A2: Increasing Unemployment

A2: Tax Hikes

A2: Less Money 1. Defense. A VAT, or value added tax, would be used to fund a UBI of 12,000 dollars. Indeed, Welker ‘19 of Washington Post explains that a UBI funded by a VAT is politically palatable and supported by both parties, making it the most likely implementation. Fortunately, Gale ‘20 of Brookings writes that a VAT would fully fund a UBI and increase income for the lowest-income household by 17%. Freedom Institute ‘20 writes that the VAT would only be applied to luxury goods, leaving out basic necessities. 2. Defense. Kramer explains self finance after 1 year.

A2: Exclusion

A2: Single-Parent Households

A2: Immigrants

A2: Elderly

A2: Women

A2: Handicapped

A2: Welfare Benefits

A2: Automatic Stabilizer 1. Defense/Turn. Lansley ‘18 of Bristol University writes that UBI acts as financial padding for future economic downturns that will temper any loss in spending during . Thus, Colombino ‘19 of IZA explains that UBI acts just like an automatic stabilizer in the economy. However, a UBI is better because of its political resilience. In fact, Harms ‘08 of the University of Chicago writes that welfare is traditionally the first thing that is cut during recessions because tax revenues fall. 2. DA. A basic income can end the modern day boom and bust cycle. Howlett ‘20 of BBI writes that Commented [5]: don't read if you don't want to the Federal Reserve’s adoption of monetary stimulus to increase inflation has created a cycle of concede some inflation debt and asset bubbles in the economy by provoking over-lending and over-investment. Indeed, Commented [6]: or if running bubbles just explain that w3 outweighs Nikolic ‘19 of FEE confirms that the Fed created the ‘01 and ‘08 bubbles. Fortunately, Howlett finds that by propping up consumer inflation by giving money directly to the middle class a UBI allows the Federal Reserve to tighten its monetary policy and end the trend of disastrous bubbles.

A2: Specific Programs

1. Turn. A UBI is always better than any welfare program for four reasons. Commented [7]: probably do not read all of these i just a. Welfare doesn’t help everyone. Hoynes ‘18 of UC Berkeley writes that while UBI would put all of them here for people to choose be used by everyone, participation in welfare reveals private information and is generally stigmatized, reducing the potential reach of welfare. Thus, Mintonlinda ’19 of Urban Institute finds that welfare doesn’t cover 13 million people in poverty. b. Welfare can only be spent on certain things. Tanner ‘15 of the Cato Institute explains that welfare provides assistance, but only for specific purposes, preventing people from making decisions based on their own unique situation. Tanner confirms that when given direct cash, people use it wisely, investing in themselves. c. Welfare is politically fragile. Day ‘18 of the New York Times explains that welfare is restricted and weaponized by the right because it affects a small share of the population and is perceived as a hand-out to lazy people. Luttmer ‘16 of NBER writes that uncertainty surrounding welfare results in families saving their finances for the short- term rather than investing it in long term prospects. d. Welfare creates a poverty trap. Tanner ‘15 of the Cato Institute explains that the welfare qualifiers test out of the majority of programs when they gain employment. Unfortunately, welfare sets up such a high bar of benefits that it is rational to choose welfare over work because living becomes so hard on a minimum wage job. This keeps families trapped on welfare as they focus on the short-term goal of basic necessities rather than seeking higher employment. 2. DA. Matthews of Vox explains that means-tested programs include work requirements, meaning the recipient has to work in order to receive benefits. However, the Urban Institute finds that poor Americans face obstacles to employment, including “low education, health problems, and limited transportation and internet access.” Consequently, CBPP found that, over 20 years, the number of Americans living in deep poverty, or under half of the poverty line, increased by 41 percent even after accounting for welfare benefits, leaving millions without income. However, Author Annie Lowrey explains that a UBI would provide money without restrictions, ending deep poverty in America.

A2: Medicaid 1. Turn. Healthcare costs are high right now because there are no low-income consumers for providers to compete for. By removing Medicaid, you create a low-income consumer base that companies will be forced to lower prices for. 2. Peck ‘20 of NBC explains that post Trump voters are looking for radical and progressive change, and have found an outlet in Bernie Sanders. Peck continues that because of Bernie's policy ideas, typical non voters are turning out in the masses, and combined with a driven base of democrats Bernie will win the nomination and beat Trump in the 2020 elections. In fact, the most recent polling has Bernie up 11 points on Trump. The Hill ‘19 furthers that given nationwide disdain for Trump and his endorsees, democrats will regain control of the senate this year. Scott ‘20 of Vox explains that given his consistency on healthcare, democrats are following Bernie's policy ideas to gain support of young voters. Thus, universal healthcare has become politically popular for democrats to pass. 3. Watson ‘19: medicaid pays doctors less than private insurance. Two implications. (Turn) Austin of Kansas Policy Institute: a. Cutting Corners. A study of over 9030,000 surgeries found that Medicaid patients were 93% more likely to pass away than those with private b. Less acceptance. Roy ‘12 of Forbes: Hospitals are 8.5 times more likely to reject medicaid patients than non insured people. i. This response acts as a prereq to costs bc even if healthcare is cheaper they don’t even have access to it. 4. Pipes of Orange County Register: Medicaid is highly wasteful, wasting an average 37 billion dollars on improper payments 5. Turn: Medicaid is a perfect example of the welfare trap. According to Dewey of the Washington Post, all Medicaid benefits are lost even if income is a dollar over the threshold. 6. Hill ‘13 Washington Times: welfare in the status quo gives employers an excuse to provide fewer health care benefits. This is why low-wage jobs with no health benefits have proliferated.

A2: Pell Grants

A2: SNAP

A2: Job Training Programs 1. Defense. Morath ‘20 of the Wall Street Journal explains that retraining programs don’t work. Most of the workers who come out of the programs fail to find jobs quickly and get lower wages afterwards. 2. Non-uq. Sri-Kumar ‘17 of the Milken Review writes that UBI is a better way to retrain workers for two reasons. a. It gives the financial breathing room for workers to be temporarily unemployed while they take the time to acquire skills. b. It would increase employer’s incentives to offer training because they can now offer a low wage while a worker is being trained.

A2: EITC 1. Defense. Rector ‘16 of the Heritage Foundation explains that the average EITC is a mere $2,900 per year to low-income families, nowhere near the $12,000 a UBI provides annually. 2. Edwards of CATO Institute: ¾ of people taking wage supplements are encouraged to work less because of potential loss of benefits after passing a certain income level 3. Tavernise of NYT: most of those who make it past the poverty line due to the EITC fall back within a year due to a cycle of low-wage work and reliance on credit. Thus the EITC keeps those in poverty. 4. Keshner 20 finds that almost half of those eligible for the program don’t apply because they were not sure if they were qualified. 5. Weingarten ‘12 of New America explains that since the EITC comes in one lump sum once a year, structuring the system in a way that does not promote the saving that low-income families need to do to become resistant to shocks and escape poverty.

A2: Housing Vouchers 1. Turn. Tanner ‘15 of the Cato Institute writes that government housing assistance programs concentrate a large number of poor people into one area because the housing assistance can only be used in designated areas. This creates areas devoid of economic opportunity because no is there to support schools or transportation and businesses move to areas where consumers have higher disposable income. On the other hand, a UBI would give a stable flow of income that would encourage businesses to come into these areas. Indeed, Howlett ‘20 of BBI explains that a UBI would create a flood of cheap homes by giving more income because housing is currently concentrated where jobs are. With a UBI businesses, would flood into new markets and cheap housing would to because there is an increase in demand. 2. Defense. Affordable Housing Online explains that Trump’s 2020 budget proposes nearly $10 billion in cuts to Housing Welfare Programs, meaning MTW for housing is diminishing dramatically in the status quo.

A2 Section 8 1. Defense. Walter ‘18 of Archinect explains that the national average waiting list for Section 8 vouchers is two years long, and nearly half of all housing authorities have closed their lists to new entries, including most large cities like LA and New York.

A2: Funding Links

A2: Debt 1. Economic growth will solve the debt, 3 warrants. a. First, is AI. Bo 16’ explains that because AI changes the economic dynamic by acting as a force for both capital and labor. As such, he concludes that AI will increase economic growth to 2.6% to 4.6% b. Second, is big data. Bloom of Pivotal explains that because big data allows companies to make significantly smarter and better investment, he finds that by 2020, annual growth will increase by 600 billion dollars, or the equivalent increase in annual GDP growth of 2.7%. c. Third, is UBI. Kramer: writes that a UBI would expand the economy by 12.6%, increasing our GDP growth to 3.5% This is key as Moore of the Wall Street Journal 18’ quantifies that a sustained GDP of growth of 3% is enough to solve our debt problem. 5% growth rates would be more than enough to dwarf the debt. 2. Defense. Lowrey ‘18 of the Atlantic explains that funding a UBI would only require taxes similar to that of Europe, with multiple tax-based financing mechanisms including a carbon tax and ending the mortgage interest reduction, removing the need to deficit finance. 3. While most people used to not care about our deficit – that has changed. Kull explains that as our deficit has ballooned to 1.1 trillion, reducing our deficit was the 3rd most important priority for Americans, with 80% of republicans opposing the debt and 76% of the democrats. a. Furthermore, Kull continues that both democrats and republicans overwhelmingly support tax hikes over everything else as the means to reduce the deficit. The implication of this is that if we implement a UBI, we would do so by raising taxes, not through deficit financing. 4. Despite the US’s massive debt-expansion, investors will always lend money to the US. This is for two reasons. a. First. Spross of the Week writes that the US’s sovereign currency system ensures investors that buying US bonds is always a safe investment. In worst-case scenarios the US prints money to pay investors and when investors buy bonds again the US uses that money to generate economic growth and tax revenue that can be further used to pay off the debt. b. Second. Purtill of Quartz explains that foreign investors will always buy bonds because they are able to buy them in their own currency and then get paid back in US dollars. Investors always want US currency because it is the global standard and used in international exchanges.

A2: VAT

A2: Carbon Tax

A2: Capital Gains Tax

A2: Counter-Advocacy

A2: Doing Both

A2: Private UBI

A2: Miscellaneous

AT: Basic Income Not Enough to Survive

A2: Emerging Markets

A2: Currency Depreciation 1. Delink; Vaishampayan ’18 of Wall Street Journal writes that the dollar has been weakening relative to emerging market currencies, so investors are staying in emerging markets, preventing any capital flight and higher interest rates in other countries. 2. Turn; Guilford ‘18 of Quartz writes that higher fiscal deficits drive up demand for foreign imports because domestic productive capacity is limited. Thus, any further injection of money into the economy only raises net imports. When this happens, she continues that this deficit would pressure the dollar to weaken, loosening the burden for dollar-denominated debt. 3. Turn; Wu ‘11 of Fordham University writes the uncovered interest rate parity predicts that high interest rate currencies tend to depreciate. This is because Cavallo ‘08 of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco writes that the difference in interest rates between the two countries reflects the rate of depreciation against the low-interest-rate currency in order to ensure that investors cannot make money simply by jumping between currencies.

A2: Interest Rate Spill Over 1. Delink; Vaishampayan ’18 of Wall Street Journal writes that the dollar has been weakening relative to emerging market currencies, so investors are staying in emerging markets, preventing any capital flight and higher interest rates in other countries. 2. Delink; Spiro ‘18 of the South China Morning Post writes that inflows into emerging markets reached a record high across the board last year despite three interest rate hikes. Thus, he continues that the reduced investment in specific emerging markets is due to domestic factors, not external ones. 3. Delink; Vaishampayan ’18 of Wall Street Journal writes that emerging markets don’t raise interest rates when America does anymore because low inflation makes hikes impossible. That’s why Mihm ’18 of Bloomberg writes that historically, the correlation between higher interest rates in America and higher interest rates elsewhere is extremely limited. 4. Turn; Mihm ’18 of Bloomberg writes that 2/3 of the changes in capital flows to emerging markets is determined by if emerging markets are growing much faster than the U.S. Thus, higher interest rates in America slow down the economy, increasing investment into emerging markets.

A2: EM Default Risks 1. Seeking Alpha ‘17 writes that only 15% of EM debt is dollar-denominated. Turkey Collapse 1. Bremmer ‘18 of TIME writes that if a crisis happens in a single country, investors are spooked and thus sell shares of all emerging markets at once. This means that if a single country will have a default with or without high levels of U.S. debt, their impacts are still triggered. There are two reasons Turkey is going to collapse anyways. a. A trade war; Partington ‘18 of the Guardian writes that Trump’s tariffs on Turkish metals has caused the lira to fall by 20% relative to the dollar, prompting counter tariffs from Erdogan that caused the lira to fall even further. b. Central mismanagement; Hakura ‘18 of TIME writes that the Turkish President will prioritize short- term growth over macroeconomic stability, forgoing interest rate hikes to curb inflation and hiring inexperienced inner circle members.

Argentina Collapse 1. Bremmer ‘18 of TIME writes that if a crisis happens in a single countrie, investors are spooked and thus sell shares of all emerging markets at once. This means that if a single country will have a default with or without high levels of U.S. debt, their impacts are still triggered. Cohen ‘18 of Reuters gives three reasons that Argentina is going to collapse anyways. a. The peso has long been over-valued and the peso bubble popped, dropping valuations. b. Macri’s government spiked utility prices to reduce government subsidies which has driven up high levels of inflation. c. Soybeans and Corn have experienced the worst drought in decades, causing a recession and currency crisis.

A2: Debt Harms

1. Defense. Our debt is not going to be a problem in the future for two reasons: a. Lewis ‘18 of Forbes writes that Trump’s tax cuts have actually made tax revenue rise over time because of increasing economic growth. In fact, by 2028 the US will run a budget surplus. b. Mandel ‘18 of the University of Pennsylvania finds that increasing productivity due to the automation boom will cause federal revenues to increase by $3.2 trillion over the text 15 years, leaving room for extra spending. Thus, Tamny ‘17 of Forbes writes that the AI boom will leave our debt “exceedingly small”. 2. Defense. They are blowing a UBI’s affect on the debt out of proportion. Kramer ‘19 of Ball State University writes that because a UBI will expand the economy, it will increase tax revenue enough to cause it to be self-financing. 3. A2: Fiscal Stimulus 1. Defense. Lowrey ‘18 of the Atlantic writes that since the recovery after the 2008 crisis, the view of policymakers has changed in Washington towards caring less and less about high government debt. Lowrey gives two reasons for this:

a. The general populace cares a lot less about the debt now, with the percentage of voters who viewed the debt as an important issue falling by 24%. As a result, politicians don’t care about passing larger deficits anymore. b. The majority of the hype after the 2008 crisis about how the deficit would hurt the American economy proved to be wrong, resulting in policymakers rethinking their narrative on the debt. 2. Defense. Spross ‘18 of the Week writes that interest payments will never constrain our budget because the government can simply print more money to pay off the interest costs. This doesn’t cause inflation, because Conover ‘13 of the American Enterprise Institute writes that when the Federal Reserve prints more money, it is buying back bonds, thus not increasing the total money supply but simply liquidating assets. This means that we can always just print more money during a recession to increase our budget, which is what we did in 2008 with our quantitative easing program. 3. Defense. Ausherback ‘17 of Berkeley University writes that policymakers will always have flexibility for fiscal stimulus because the stimulus pays for itself by raising revenues, indicating that this is never a problem. 4. Delink. Roche ‘18 of Seeking Alpha writes that our deficit is just 3.5% of our GDP, which is significantly lower than during the past crisis when our deficit was at 10% of the GDP, indicating that we still have a high level of policy flexibility during the next recession. Indeed, he continues that even if rates rise dramatically, it would still be around the interest costs during the 80s and 90s, when we had no problem with our deficit. 5. DA. Mitchell ‘10 of George Mason University describes that when the government borrows more money through , it competes with private entities who are also borrowing to finance their own companies. He continues that when the government borrows, lenders raise interest rates on corporate loans, because they need a higher return to compete with the safer government treasuries. Indeed, Laubach ‘03 of the Federal Reserve quantifies that every 1% of GDP increase of government deficit spending prompts overall interest rates to rise by 0.25%. That’s problematic, as now it is more expensive for companies to borrow so they can expand, reducing the amount of investment on a whole. Sousa ‘11 of the International Monetary Fund quantifies that for every 1% increase in , the amount of private investment decreases by 1.8% after 4 years, ultimately indicating that the country actually suffers economically with higher levels of spending. In fact, Dupor ‘11 of Ohio State University finds that Obama’s fiscal stimulus in the 2008 recession destroyed a net 550,000 jobs due to the crowd- out effect.

A2: Interest Payments Crowd-out 1. Defense. Barrett ‘18 of the International Monetary Fund writes that the largest possible amount for interest costs to rise in the long-run is 2% for the U.S. That’s why Kogan ‘15 of the Center for Budget Policies and Priorities writes that for the entire history of the U.S., our economic growth has outpaced our interest costs, indicating that we will never have to cut spending later. Their evidence about crowding out our budget assumes that the budget doesn’t get larger as time goes on, but because our economy is growing faster, the budget is able to grow faster as well. 2. Defense. Ebby ‘18 of the University of Pennsylvania writes that when the government debt rises rapidly, the government refinances its debt towards long-term bonds and reshapes its maturity structure. When the government does so, it rolls over the bonds on prevailing interest rates. This means that the government is constantly able to finance its debt at the low-interest rates of today.

A2: Foreign Aid 1. Defense. Damiano ‘15 of the Strauss Center writes that foreign aid never gets cut because of lobbyist influence. Private companies and NGOs provide the resources and transportation for most of the US’s foreign aid, meaning they will always lobby against cutting it, and Congress will thus never cut it because lobbying lines their pockets not to. 2. Trump won’t cut foreign aid for two reasons: a. Thrush ‘18 of the NYT writes that Trump is embracing a massive expansion of foreign aid because he wants to counter China’s growing geopolitical influence in Africa and Latin America. b. Solomon of the Financial Post writes two days ago that Trump uses threats of foreign aid cuts to bribe countries to do his bidding. Cutting holistically would jeopardize this leverage. For example, Trump used an aid cut of 200 million dollars to Palestinians to try and force them to come to peace talks. 3. DA. Foreign aid cripples recipient nation’s economies through predatory loans: Malik ‘18 of The Guardian explains that a high proportion of foreign aid is given through loans, making the recipient nation become indebted, paying back more in interest payments to the US than they were given. 4. DA. Deaton ‘15 of Princeton University writes that foreign aid makes regimes less accountable to the people because they no longer rely on them as much as a source of revenue. As such, they hold no incentive to please their constituents, creating unrest and an incentive to revolt, citing Rwanda, Ethiopia, and Somalia as examples of countries where aid created a divide between the government and people, facilitating conflict and oppression. 5. Kono ‘13 of UC Davis writes that the foreign aid that has flowed into many developing nations has simply fallen into military coffers and not actually helping the people. This approach makes a lot of sense to a corrupt leader, since they retain control through coercion and will always prioritize giving resources to their small groups of supports and military establishments. That’s why Collier ‘07 of Oxford University writes that a 1% increase in foreign aid results in a 3.3% increase in military spending. This plays out in real life; he continues that 40% of African military spending is financed by aid. Thus, Bluhm ‘16 of the Swiss Economic Institute writes that a 1% increase in aid increases the probability of escalation of conflict by 1.4%.

A2: Political Trade-offs

A2: Immigration 1. Defense. Davis ‘19 of Columbia University writes that a UBI will not result in more restrictive immigration policy for two reasons. a. Naturalized immigrants already receive money from welfare, meaning that passing a UBI won’t give any more money to immigrants than the government already is. b. The right already fully supports a UBI because it gets rid of the welfare programs that conservatives don’t like, meaning the right won’t want less immigration in return for passing a UBI.