3 ms·

> 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 a

> 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 The ACA was a massive political battle, and while I don't think it'll be repealed, there's still a decent political groundswell aimed at doing so.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.

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.