6 ms·

>Except that there are strong social incentives for anyone who is capable of getting a paying job and going off welfare to do so Debatable. In the US, many wel

>Except that there are strong social incentives for anyone who is capable of getting a paying job and going off welfare to do so Debatable. In the US, many welfare programs are designed to cut off anyone who actually gets a job...even if that job pays less than what you'd get from welfare. This problem gets even bigger as you factor in the fact that multiple welfare programs exist, making it nigh-impossible to prevent that drop from being catastrophic. This is a major incentive to stay on welfare. Meanwhile, with a BI, a person who seeks a job will earn more money than one who does not. That's it. No complicated math involved, not even subtraction; a guy who works will have more money than one who does not. Assuming all the participants want more money, the second set of rules will lead to more work than the first.

stevesearer 11y ago
One question I have about BI is if it replaces other forms of social welfare (food stamps, unemployment, etc...), what happens when some percentage of people inevitably make decisions and still cannot afford the basics of what BI should cover? Will a new set of social welfare programs replace the ones that were previously removed?
- beat 11y ago
  If BI isn't enough to replace existing welfare systems, then it isn't enough. You can't half-ass something like this.
  - stevesearer 11y ago
    I'm more speaking to what I believe is the inevitability of some people making bad decisions (like buying a bunch of powerball tickets or betting your money at the racetrack or something.) with the money they receive and then not being able to afford the basics. There would obviously be many people who are benefitted by BI, but my question is more wondering what happens to the percentage of people that end up still needing extra help.
    - dllthomas 11y ago
      If someone needs extra help after a basic income, clearly they need non-monetary help. Making it easier to distinguish those cases seems like an improvement.
    - Alupis 11y ago
      I question how a "BI" can be paid for long-term. Presumably BI is taxed like any other income, but of course that means the amount of tax revenue collected will not balance the amount of money paid to citizens... unless we really raise the rates on "wealthy" people (who's definition may shift if everyone is provided a free "comfortable" standard of living). In which case this "BI" becomes a Robbin Hood tax on the nation's wealthy, job creators, innovators, etc. Knowing several people personally that would be likely to only exist off of the BI (and not produce anything, or do anything with their free time), I have my doubts about a BI nation-wide leading to a boom in productivity. This may be a selection bias, but it seems to me as time goes on, we have more and more individuals content to not produce, leaving their days to just games and other "fun" activities.
      - beat 11y ago
        Are those people you mention actually productive now? Most of the people I know who would do nothing are already doing nothing.
        Alupis 11y ago
        > Are those people you mention actually productive now? Well, kind of, but only enough to pay rent and eat. But that's my point, individuals like this, who only work the bare minimum to just keep existing and have no drive or motivation to achieve more, are very likely to just not work anymore at all since their basic needs are now provided. At the moment, they at least work somewhat. This helps keep local businesses running (even if just barely). With a BI, these folks stop all production and resort to their ideal lifestyle of not doing anything. It's a little naive to think these individuals will suddenly change in light of all this new-found free time, and run out to create businesses or new things. We can examine lottery jackpot winners for evidence of what many people would do if they didn't have to worry about money anymore (they do nothing in large part). I just don't see any scenario where a BI leads to increased productivity like what is being claimed. In contrast, I can foresee unemployment rates increasing, as fewer individuals participate in the workforce at all (to no determent of themselves, since their standard of living is provided free of cost). This will ultimately put strain on the system since not enough production is happening to offset this behavior, which will lead to drastic measures like dramatically increasing tax rates more and more. I just don't buy the argument that giving someone a free living without any expectation of productivity in return will lead to a net increase in productivity.
  - flubert 11y ago
    I don't think you've captured the nature of the question. If you give everyone a cash handout, some percentage of them might spend all of their allowance on alcohol and lottery tickets, and not have enough left over for food or rent at the end of the month, leaving them hungry and homeless. Under BI, is this situation acceptable, because it is their own fault for "wasting" the money?
    - dllthomas 11y ago
      If someone can't keep their lives together with a reasonable income, sure it's their fault for wasting their money. I wouldn't say that they don't deserve help at that point, but I would say that it's clear they need some deeper kind of help than money (targeted or not).
    - beat 11y ago
      If someone is so disabled that BI alone won't save them, then yes, other things will step in. This is a great opening for private charity, in fact. Given BI as a baseline, the conservative dream of having private charity handle things might actually work, because it would be limited to the exception cases.
    - patmcc 11y ago
      People can do this currently with food stamps too (by selling them for 80% of face value or whatever), so it's not a new situation. So I'd say yes, we obviously can't give people unlimited funds.
  - noonespecial 11y ago
    The system we've got now isn't even working quarter-ass. Finding a "replacement" is a pretty low bar.
- gaius 11y ago
  Also if it replaces the existing complicated system, what happens to the million-odd public sector workers who manage and administer it?
  - dawnbreez 11y ago
    I figure, a BI in the US would be handled through local DMVs (triple acronym combo!) and thus at least some of the officials involved in the old welfare process will be transferred to the DMVs to help keep up. Others will, inevitably, find themselves out of a job; there's a massive, massive number of people in that bureaucracy, far more than we really need even before a BI comes in and makes most of that paperwork obsolete. The good news is, the money that once went into their paycheck will now be used to fund their Basic Income, and they can find other lines of work.
- DanBC 11y ago
  Someone on benefits who spends all their money on alcohol will find themselves grinding their way through civil debt recovery - their landlord will sue for loss of rent and will evict them from the home; utility companies will sue to recover the debt and will cut off the utilities. and whether that's BI or benefit makes little difference to that. You get the money and it's up to you what you spend it on, once you've spent it that's it, you don't get another dollop if you make unwise choices. At least in England someone who becomes homeless through non-payment of rent (even as a result of alcoholism) is declared to have made themselves homeless, and they're not eligible for public housing. They might be able to get emergency accommodation in homeless shelters. There are some slight complications if children are involved - a parent who causes the children to become homeless through alcoholism is going to find considerable child protection social services involvement in their life, but the presence of children may make emergency bed&breakfast housing available. Those are pretty terrible places. They're often not fit for human habitation, and are over crowded.
  - Alupis 11y ago
    > Someone on benefits who spends all their money on alcohol will find themselves grinding their way through civil debt recovery I think the point being made was, do we continue to provide other welfare services to an individual like this, or do we just cut them loose and let them fail? Many people would argue we would still have to provide assistance to this individual... so then it begs the question, how is a BI any better than the slew of welfare programs we already run? At this point, wouldn't it be better (and probably cheaper long-term) for the government to just buy all the homes in the nation, and provide them free of cost to anyone? Perhaps food should be free as well.
    - manicdee 11y ago
      Your straw man certainly draws a long bow :D Here are the types of "welfare" that habitual failures might have access to under BI: - Budgeting advice - Free housing for the homeless - Free psychological consultations - In extreme cases, a controlled spending card (i.e.: an EFTPOS card that can't be used for drugs and gambling) But we wouldn't give them more money, because they've made a habit of using it badly.
- jnbiche 11y ago
  Yes, it replaces all other forms of social welfare. Here in the US at least, the welfare system is problematic enough (bureaucratic snafus, etc) that a robust private charity exists to back things up. So there are private soup kitchens, food banks, etc. Someone who used up all their basic income would need to turn to friends, family, church, or these private charities.
- bsder 11y ago
  This ... is complicated. If you have someone in your family going through Alzheimer's or dementia, you suddenly realize that there is a spectrum of functionality as a human being. There is no single point where there is changeover from human being who is "functional" and "not functional". There is no bright line where we can say "this person is still responsible for their actions" and "this person is no longer responsible for their actions and the someone must step in". We, as modern societies, do NOT handle this with any amount of grace.
- rorykoehler 11y ago
  Then they are not mentally healthy and should be treated as such.
e40 11y ago
The GP was talking about social incentives. You're talking about monetary incentives. Different things. I agree with the GP. There is a real stigma about being on welfare. Someone close to me would rather be homeless than be on welfare. Homeless in the sense that he sleeps on people's couches, and has for several months.

stevesearer 11y ago

One question I have about BI is if it replaces other forms of social welfare (food stamps, unemployment, etc...), what happens when some percentage of people inevitably make decisions and still cannot afford the basics of what BI should cover? Will a new set of social welfare programs replace the ones that were previously removed?

beat 11y ago
If BI isn't enough to replace existing welfare systems, then it isn't enough. You can't half-ass something like this.
- stevesearer 11y ago
  I'm more speaking to what I believe is the inevitability of some people making bad decisions (like buying a bunch of powerball tickets or betting your money at the racetrack or something.) with the money they receive and then not being able to afford the basics. There would obviously be many people who are benefitted by BI, but my question is more wondering what happens to the percentage of people that end up still needing extra help.
  - dllthomas 11y ago
    If someone needs extra help after a basic income, clearly they need non-monetary help. Making it easier to distinguish those cases seems like an improvement.
  - Alupis 11y ago
    I question how a "BI" can be paid for long-term. Presumably BI is taxed like any other income, but of course that means the amount of tax revenue collected will not balance the amount of money paid to citizens... unless we really raise the rates on "wealthy" people (who's definition may shift if everyone is provided a free "comfortable" standard of living). In which case this "BI" becomes a Robbin Hood tax on the nation's wealthy, job creators, innovators, etc. Knowing several people personally that would be likely to only exist off of the BI (and not produce anything, or do anything with their free time), I have my doubts about a BI nation-wide leading to a boom in productivity. This may be a selection bias, but it seems to me as time goes on, we have more and more individuals content to not produce, leaving their days to just games and other "fun" activities.
    - beat 11y ago
      Are those people you mention actually productive now? Most of the people I know who would do nothing are already doing nothing.
      - Alupis 11y ago
        > Are those people you mention actually productive now? Well, kind of, but only enough to pay rent and eat. But that's my point, individuals like this, who only work the bare minimum to just keep existing and have no drive or motivation to achieve more, are very likely to just not work anymore at all since their basic needs are now provided. At the moment, they at least work somewhat. This helps keep local businesses running (even if just barely). With a BI, these folks stop all production and resort to their ideal lifestyle of not doing anything. It's a little naive to think these individuals will suddenly change in light of all this new-found free time, and run out to create businesses or new things. We can examine lottery jackpot winners for evidence of what many people would do if they didn't have to worry about money anymore (they do nothing in large part). I just don't see any scenario where a BI leads to increased productivity like what is being claimed. In contrast, I can foresee unemployment rates increasing, as fewer individuals participate in the workforce at all (to no determent of themselves, since their standard of living is provided free of cost). This will ultimately put strain on the system since not enough production is happening to offset this behavior, which will lead to drastic measures like dramatically increasing tax rates more and more. I just don't buy the argument that giving someone a free living without any expectation of productivity in return will lead to a net increase in productivity.
- flubert 11y ago
  I don't think you've captured the nature of the question. If you give everyone a cash handout, some percentage of them might spend all of their allowance on alcohol and lottery tickets, and not have enough left over for food or rent at the end of the month, leaving them hungry and homeless. Under BI, is this situation acceptable, because it is their own fault for "wasting" the money?
  - dllthomas 11y ago
    If someone can't keep their lives together with a reasonable income, sure it's their fault for wasting their money. I wouldn't say that they don't deserve help at that point, but I would say that it's clear they need some deeper kind of help than money (targeted or not).
  - beat 11y ago
    If someone is so disabled that BI alone won't save them, then yes, other things will step in. This is a great opening for private charity, in fact. Given BI as a baseline, the conservative dream of having private charity handle things might actually work, because it would be limited to the exception cases.
  - patmcc 11y ago
    People can do this currently with food stamps too (by selling them for 80% of face value or whatever), so it's not a new situation. So I'd say yes, we obviously can't give people unlimited funds.
- noonespecial 11y ago
  The system we've got now isn't even working quarter-ass. Finding a "replacement" is a pretty low bar.
gaius 11y ago
Also if it replaces the existing complicated system, what happens to the million-odd public sector workers who manage and administer it?
- dawnbreez 11y ago
  I figure, a BI in the US would be handled through local DMVs (triple acronym combo!) and thus at least some of the officials involved in the old welfare process will be transferred to the DMVs to help keep up. Others will, inevitably, find themselves out of a job; there's a massive, massive number of people in that bureaucracy, far more than we really need even before a BI comes in and makes most of that paperwork obsolete. The good news is, the money that once went into their paycheck will now be used to fund their Basic Income, and they can find other lines of work.
DanBC 11y ago
Someone on benefits who spends all their money on alcohol will find themselves grinding their way through civil debt recovery - their landlord will sue for loss of rent and will evict them from the home; utility companies will sue to recover the debt and will cut off the utilities. and whether that's BI or benefit makes little difference to that. You get the money and it's up to you what you spend it on, once you've spent it that's it, you don't get another dollop if you make unwise choices. At least in England someone who becomes homeless through non-payment of rent (even as a result of alcoholism) is declared to have made themselves homeless, and they're not eligible for public housing. They might be able to get emergency accommodation in homeless shelters. There are some slight complications if children are involved - a parent who causes the children to become homeless through alcoholism is going to find considerable child protection social services involvement in their life, but the presence of children may make emergency bed&breakfast housing available. Those are pretty terrible places. They're often not fit for human habitation, and are over crowded.
- Alupis 11y ago
  > Someone on benefits who spends all their money on alcohol will find themselves grinding their way through civil debt recovery I think the point being made was, do we continue to provide other welfare services to an individual like this, or do we just cut them loose and let them fail? Many people would argue we would still have to provide assistance to this individual... so then it begs the question, how is a BI any better than the slew of welfare programs we already run? At this point, wouldn't it be better (and probably cheaper long-term) for the government to just buy all the homes in the nation, and provide them free of cost to anyone? Perhaps food should be free as well.
  - manicdee 11y ago
    Your straw man certainly draws a long bow :D Here are the types of "welfare" that habitual failures might have access to under BI: - Budgeting advice - Free housing for the homeless - Free psychological consultations - In extreme cases, a controlled spending card (i.e.: an EFTPOS card that can't be used for drugs and gambling) But we wouldn't give them more money, because they've made a habit of using it badly.
jnbiche 11y ago
Yes, it replaces all other forms of social welfare. Here in the US at least, the welfare system is problematic enough (bureaucratic snafus, etc) that a robust private charity exists to back things up. So there are private soup kitchens, food banks, etc. Someone who used up all their basic income would need to turn to friends, family, church, or these private charities.
bsder 11y ago
This ... is complicated. If you have someone in your family going through Alzheimer's or dementia, you suddenly realize that there is a spectrum of functionality as a human being. There is no single point where there is changeover from human being who is "functional" and "not functional". There is no bright line where we can say "this person is still responsible for their actions" and "this person is no longer responsible for their actions and the someone must step in". We, as modern societies, do NOT handle this with any amount of grace.
rorykoehler 11y ago
Then they are not mentally healthy and should be treated as such.

e40 11y ago

The GP was talking about social incentives. You're talking about monetary incentives. Different things. I agree with the GP. There is a real stigma about being on welfare. Someone close to me would rather be homeless than be on welfare. Homeless in the sense that he sleeps on people's couches, and has for several months.