3 ms·

> Plenty of people already receive checks from the government every month that they live on. Like, a whole lot of people. There should already be a not-so-huge

by lftl 11y ago

> Plenty of people already receive checks from the government every month that they live on. Like, a whole lot of people. There should already be a not-so-huge wave of accomplishment coming from all these people. Not to belittle them and their abilities, but there isn't. I'm not well versed in the structure of European welfare systems, but when you look at the US welfare system there are some absolutely perverse incentives that discourage people from working their way out of it. Numerous programs have a sharp income cliff: make more than $x and you no longer get this benefit at all. I have talked to people who have quit a job because they got a promotion and would no longer receive benefits to help pay for the place they were currently renting. It's bewildering to me that there's no political will on either side to fix this. All it would take is requiring graduated income checks so for every $1 you make more in wages you lose less than $1 of benefits. So I have some optimism for basic income that if you have a truly inalienable source of income with no strings attached that it'll open up a ton of creativity and value.

SixSigma 11y ago
> All it would take is requiring graduated income checks so for every $1 you make more in wages you lose less than $1 of benefits. Or just universal benefits and a progressive income tax, then you don't have to have the bureaucratic machinery of the means tested welfare state.
- dllthomas 11y ago
  That doesn't seem an alternative, so much as it seems one potential (particularly smooth) approach.
  - SixSigma 11y ago
    I meant instead of $1 in $1 off - too much work.
    - dllthomas 11y ago
      lftl said, "All it would take is requiring graduated income checks so for every $1 you make more in wages you lose less than $1 of benefits." A progressive income tax (or even a flat tax, really) is a special case of that, with income checks maximally graduated and always stripping your benefits of less than a dollar for every dollar.
- lftl 11y ago
  There are two reason I'm more interested in just tweaking the current programs rather than UBI (or something similar) and neither of the reasons are that I think the current system is more efficient. 1) In the US at least UBI seems politically unfeasible for the near term at least. The ACA was a massive political battle, and while I don't think it'll be repealed, there's still a decent political groundswell aimed at doing so. This makes it hard to imagine anything like UBI getting done in the US. Graduated cliffs for existing programs seems like a minute tweak in contrast, and I really can't foresee what a legitimate argument against it would be on either side. I'm pretty sure most of the programs could even be changed by executive order to some degree. 2) I think there will always be a paternalistic side to welfare or UBI. With UBI some people will continue to avoid spending their money on decent housing, decent food, and health insurance (assuming there's no universal healthcare as well). And there will always be some pressure for programs to provide these things to people, who have decided they aren't a priority, at taxpayer expense. Hopefully, charities could step into these roles, but welfare gets messy in both directions with some people claiming there's a moral imperative for government to help people in certain situations, and some people angry about "their" money being spent by others on things they find morally objectionable. I don't think those arguments are ever going away.

by lftl 11y ago

SixSigma 11y ago

> All it would take is requiring graduated income checks so for every $1 you make more in wages you lose less than $1 of benefits. Or just universal benefits and a progressive income tax, then you don't have to have the bureaucratic machinery of the means tested welfare state.

dllthomas 11y ago
That doesn't seem an alternative, so much as it seems one potential (particularly smooth) approach.
- SixSigma 11y ago
  I meant instead of $1 in $1 off - too much work.
  - dllthomas 11y ago
    lftl said, "All it would take is requiring graduated income checks so for every $1 you make more in wages you lose less than $1 of benefits." A progressive income tax (or even a flat tax, really) is a special case of that, with income checks maximally graduated and always stripping your benefits of less than a dollar for every dollar.
lftl 11y ago
There are two reason I'm more interested in just tweaking the current programs rather than UBI (or something similar) and neither of the reasons are that I think the current system is more efficient. 1) In the US at least UBI seems politically unfeasible for the near term at least. The ACA was a massive political battle, and while I don't think it'll be repealed, there's still a decent political groundswell aimed at doing so. This makes it hard to imagine anything like UBI getting done in the US. Graduated cliffs for existing programs seems like a minute tweak in contrast, and I really can't foresee what a legitimate argument against it would be on either side. I'm pretty sure most of the programs could even be changed by executive order to some degree. 2) I think there will always be a paternalistic side to welfare or UBI. With UBI some people will continue to avoid spending their money on decent housing, decent food, and health insurance (assuming there's no universal healthcare as well). And there will always be some pressure for programs to provide these things to people, who have decided they aren't a priority, at taxpayer expense. Hopefully, charities could step into these roles, but welfare gets messy in both directions with some people claiming there's a moral imperative for government to help people in certain situations, and some people angry about "their" money being spent by others on things they find morally objectionable. I don't think those arguments are ever going away.