EconoMonitor

The typical chart looks something like this; http://www.economonitor.com/dolanecon/files/2014/01/P140103-5p.png

But even that does not include a substantial number of assistance programs, like TANF (up to $10k per year in cash), Section 8, and forget about a proper analysis of progressive income-based-pricing for things like college tuition.

Most of all, these analysis always assume the cost of working is $0 when in fact it costs a lot to get to work and be at work all day, as well as the marginal value of not being employed and spending that time doing work you would otherwise pay someone else to do (childcare, housework, home schooling, etc.) is very significant.

It also depends heavily on how healthy the family is, and therefore the market value of $0 deductible Medicaid / ACA. GSA pegs the average value of Medicaid around $8,000 but consider the max family out-of-pocket for Bronze ACA without any subsidies is $13,200, and that's not even counting the premiums, so that $8,000 value is assuming a a relatively health family of 4.

If the family has chronic health needs, then getting eligible for Medicaid can save upwards of $25,000 per year between premiums and out-of-pocket expenses. Also note, SSDI is ~$48,000/yr for a fully vested disabled individual with 2 children.

So I definitely agree if you just look at the tax return the average healthy family of 4 will see net income rising certainly before you hit $100k gross. How much their cost-of-living is increasing in…

BI can't be static, and will have to be tied to the affordability of basic necessities like housing and transportation. As prices rise, so must BI, or it's not BI.

I don't mind discussing the finer points, but work disincentive as it exists as an argument to work as a moral obligation, yes, I think (know [0]) the common thought pattern is that work is a moral requirement, that those that don't are bad, and all social status is earned by those that have, while have-nots just haven't worked hard enough.

As a basic argument of production, it's basically been proven that work disincentive is not actually a thing. Here's a good gathering of evidence: http://www.economonitor.com/dolanecon/2014/08/25/a-universal-basic-income-and-work-incentives-part-2-evidence/

[0] http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business-jan-june13-makingsense_06-21/

The game is based on the horrendous and fatally flawed Phillips Curve that posits a inverse relationship between employment and inflation (i.e., a tight labor market means high inflation and high inflation can tighten the labor market - that is the Fed can inject money into the economy to spur job growth).

The Curve was dead in the 1970s and through the 1990s:

https://mises.org/library/phillips-curve

And still dead:

http://www.economonitor.com/dolanecon/2014/05/12/what-ever-happened-to-the-phillips-curve-interpreting-a-half-century-of-inflation-and-unemployment/

I just wish it would die completely.

Here are some references to my main assertion that reserve requirements don't limit a bank's ability to loan, instead capital requirements are the limiting factor.

Another good source from digi_owl: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q102.pdf

Also this: https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/epr/02v08n1/0205bennpdf.pdf

and this:
http://www.economonitor.com/lrwray/2013/08/15/banks-dont-lend-reserves-who-knew-mmt-thats-who/

and finally this:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2014/01/21/banks-dont-lend-out-reserves/#346bc5123594

"Banks do not create money out of thin air: central banks do."

I think that's not exactly true.
The reality is that banks make loans and then search for the reserves. So, in practice, are the credit departments in commercial bank who decide if new money is created. Central banks can influence this by making the creation of new money cheaper or expensive.

http://www.economonitor.com/lrwray/2013/08/15/banks-dont-lend-reserves-who-knew-mmt-thats-who/

To anyone interested in these issues, I recommend Modern Money Theory ( http://neweconomicperspectives.org/modern-monetary-theory-primer.html ).

This seems like a new sense of the phrase, which has appeared intermittently in the more bearish end of the financial reporting and opinion spectrum. It used to be a synonym of "mark to make-believe", which was one of the popular "methods" during the events leading up to the 2008 bust:

http://www.economonitor.com/blog/2009/09/mark-to-make-believe/

The new usage does seem quite an apt term to describe what's being discussed here (whether it's correct or not is obviously up for discussion.)