6 ms·

Which is a bit ironic because the infrastructure of basic income will require tracking of US citizens on a scale never before seen in the US. I'm not for or aga

by hiou 11y ago

Which is a bit ironic because the infrastructure of basic income will require tracking of US citizens on a scale never before seen in the US. I'm not for or against basic income at this point, but it does make me chuckle a bit about idealists and their inability to see what their ideas will look like in practice.

fwn 11y ago
I am very much against the UBI but I don't see the tracking issue you mention. I'd love to know more about it!
emiliobumachar 11y ago
Please elaborate. I would think that all the government would need to know is whether each citizen exists, is still alive, and what's their bank account. With no in-depth knowledge of US government, I think it knows on average much more about each citizen.
- Jtsummers 11y ago
  The government already, in theory, has a means of making payments to nearly every citizen (social security). So drop every welfare system but the Social Security Administration, and expand its payments to everyone, rather than just those currently qualifying (survivors and retirees, primarily). (Easier said than done)
  - hiou 11y ago
    ...and keep track of every single one of those US citizens' addresses and/or bank accounts. Every single one.
    - Jtsummers 11y ago
      http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat_snapshot/ http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat_snapshot/ The SSA is currently handling some 64 million beneficiaries. I'm not contending that it'd be easy, but it's a scaling problem at this point. Systems exist to handle it already.
      - hiou 11y ago
        My apologies if my original comment appeared to be about it being unrealistic. It was about expansion of government involvement which personally I'm not particularly against(or for). I was talking about it being larger than it is now as opposed to being practical.
JustSomeNobody 11y ago
How would they need to track us differently than, say, with Soc Sec?
- hiou 11y ago
  My assumption was that Social Security typically only effects most US citizens after 65 and/or working(paying income tax). For example, while debated and likely not highly accurate, ~10% of the US citizen population doesn't have a valid id. Also, the amount of those with identification with the valid current address is even lower. When you are talking about the bottom 1/3rd of the population especially there are a lot of people outside the system who are actually US citizens. One can definitely argue that these people will receive a net benefit for entering back into it, but they will also be back into the system as opposed to now. Like I said before, I'm not against it, I just chuckle about the fact that it creates a larger percentage of the population tracked by the government.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > My assumption was that Social Security typically only effects most US citizens after 65 and/or working(paying income tax). Social Security, because eligibility is contribution based, effects people (from a tracking perspective) from the time they start working in a Social Security covered job (pretty much all legal jobs other than the subset of non-federal public sector jobs that don't participate in social security.)
pdeuchler 11y ago
You could very easily argue a UBI dramatically reduces the amount of information the government has on current welfare dependents. Besides, it can't possibly be any more "tracking" than what the IRS already does
- hiou 11y ago
  Considering the population involved in taxation is ~48% I feel like 100% is a bit higher. There is certainly additional tracking based upon the listing of dependents ect. but I'm confident it's less then every single US citizen.
  - Jtsummers 11y ago
    Nearly the entire population, at least those of working age, are involved in taxation to some extent. Everyone pays, directly or indirectly, sales and property taxes. Every employed person ,that isn't paid under the table, pays payroll (ok, a few legal exceptions to this) and income taxes (if they make enough money). Those who don't make enough money to pay income tax are still involved with the IRS because they need to file for refunds or other programs they may qualify for.
    - hiou 11y ago
      That is absolutely correct about "involvement". It was a poor choice of words. I was talking about income taxation.

by hiou 11y ago

fwn 11y ago

I am very much against the UBI but I don't see the tracking issue you mention. I'd love to know more about it!

emiliobumachar 11y ago

Please elaborate. I would think that all the government would need to know is whether each citizen exists, is still alive, and what's their bank account. With no in-depth knowledge of US government, I think it knows on average much more about each citizen.

Jtsummers 11y ago
The government already, in theory, has a means of making payments to nearly every citizen (social security). So drop every welfare system but the Social Security Administration, and expand its payments to everyone, rather than just those currently qualifying (survivors and retirees, primarily). (Easier said than done)
- hiou 11y ago
  ...and keep track of every single one of those US citizens' addresses and/or bank accounts. Every single one.
  - Jtsummers 11y ago
    http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat_snapshot/ http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat_snapshot/ The SSA is currently handling some 64 million beneficiaries. I'm not contending that it'd be easy, but it's a scaling problem at this point. Systems exist to handle it already.
    - hiou 11y ago
      My apologies if my original comment appeared to be about it being unrealistic. It was about expansion of government involvement which personally I'm not particularly against(or for). I was talking about it being larger than it is now as opposed to being practical.

JustSomeNobody 11y ago

How would they need to track us differently than, say, with Soc Sec?

hiou 11y ago
My assumption was that Social Security typically only effects most US citizens after 65 and/or working(paying income tax). For example, while debated and likely not highly accurate, ~10% of the US citizen population doesn't have a valid id. Also, the amount of those with identification with the valid current address is even lower. When you are talking about the bottom 1/3rd of the population especially there are a lot of people outside the system who are actually US citizens. One can definitely argue that these people will receive a net benefit for entering back into it, but they will also be back into the system as opposed to now. Like I said before, I'm not against it, I just chuckle about the fact that it creates a larger percentage of the population tracked by the government.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > My assumption was that Social Security typically only effects most US citizens after 65 and/or working(paying income tax). Social Security, because eligibility is contribution based, effects people (from a tracking perspective) from the time they start working in a Social Security covered job (pretty much all legal jobs other than the subset of non-federal public sector jobs that don't participate in social security.)

pdeuchler 11y ago

You could very easily argue a UBI dramatically reduces the amount of information the government has on current welfare dependents. Besides, it can't possibly be any more "tracking" than what the IRS already does

hiou 11y ago
Considering the population involved in taxation is ~48% I feel like 100% is a bit higher. There is certainly additional tracking based upon the listing of dependents ect. but I'm confident it's less then every single US citizen.
- Jtsummers 11y ago
  Nearly the entire population, at least those of working age, are involved in taxation to some extent. Everyone pays, directly or indirectly, sales and property taxes. Every employed person ,that isn't paid under the table, pays payroll (ok, a few legal exceptions to this) and income taxes (if they make enough money). Those who don't make enough money to pay income tax are still involved with the IRS because they need to file for refunds or other programs they may qualify for.
  - hiou 11y ago
    That is absolutely correct about "involvement". It was a poor choice of words. I was talking about income taxation.