3 ms·

The problem with a hard cutoff is that people just below the limit end up better off than those just above it. One problem with a soft cutoff is how often/when

by delecti 11y ago

The problem with a hard cutoff is that people just below the limit end up better off than those just above it. One problem with a soft cutoff is how often/when you adjust for changes. Basic Income is only a simple solution if it's universal. Additionally, part of the benefit of a universal basic income is that it covers the ground of programs like Social Security, so at least in theory you can get rid of it. (though I sure wouldn't want to be responsible for orchestrating the transition)

adventured 11y ago
Getting rid of Social Security is certainly a lot more viable today, now that politicians can't steal from its inbound surplus. The basic income concept also collapses when you consider Social Security - that system is designed specifically to only give people at a certain age those benefits. As has been pointed out in the case of Finland, plenty of people will find they are worse off. In the US case, if you spread that Social Security money out across 230 million adults, it would become tiny per person (~$300x per month), which is exactly what you don't want to do (unless the plan is to shift back to a system in which people are expected more so to take care of their own retirement needs, but I don't see how that is going to work out with the median paying vastly higher taxes).
- delecti 11y ago
  > if you spread that Social Security money out across 230 million adults Clearly that isn't the idea though. The idea would be more like multiplying SS such that all of those 230 million adults get the same payout as what the current recipients get now. And obviously it isn't as simple as that, not least because that's about 4 times as many people as SS covers currently, and it's already about 1/4 of the total US budget. In addition, the idea is that we shouldn't be required to work, and thus there should be basic income such that you can live comfortably, and arguably SS is already not enough for that. (the total SS budget/# of recipients = ~14k)

by delecti 11y ago

adventured 11y ago

Getting rid of Social Security is certainly a lot more viable today, now that politicians can't steal from its inbound surplus. The basic income concept also collapses when you consider Social Security - that system is designed specifically to only give people at a certain age those benefits. As has been pointed out in the case of Finland, plenty of people will find they are worse off. In the US case, if you spread that Social Security money out across 230 million adults, it would become tiny per person (~$300x per month), which is exactly what you don't want to do (unless the plan is to shift back to a system in which people are expected more so to take care of their own retirement needs, but I don't see how that is going to work out with the median paying vastly higher taxes).

delecti 11y ago
> if you spread that Social Security money out across 230 million adults Clearly that isn't the idea though. The idea would be more like multiplying SS such that all of those 230 million adults get the same payout as what the current recipients get now. And obviously it isn't as simple as that, not least because that's about 4 times as many people as SS covers currently, and it's already about 1/4 of the total US budget. In addition, the idea is that we shouldn't be required to work, and thus there should be basic income such that you can live comfortably, and arguably SS is already not enough for that. (the total SS budget/# of recipients = ~14k)