3 ms·

We are already sharing the value created by some people to other people with no more justification other than the other people being human too, and living in th

We are already sharing the value created by some people to other people with no more justification other than the other people being human too, and living in the same society as the first. We say that noone should starve, and we redistribute wealth to food stamps. We say that noone should die of preventable disease or injury, so we redistribute wealth to medicare and medicaid an emergency care. We say that everyone should have an education, so we redistribute wealth to provide free public schools. I'm not saying this country is doing a very good job of the above, and I'm not saying there's no opposition even to these measures, but we commonly accept this redistribution of wealth with no regard given to the value-adding abilities of the people receiving it. So UBI is not some brand new thing we have to justify, it's more of the same, and the justification is the same.

phd514 11y ago
There are actually different justifications for your examples above. For example, we don't let people starve because we consider any person, by mere virtue of their existence, as worthy of food. The same is not true for education. We consider the societal effects of an educated populace and workforce as valuable enough to justify the money we spend on it. UBI is not at all more of the same and it absolutely requires justification for its immense cost.
zaroth 11y ago
Between TANF/SNAP and Medicaid expansion -- for the states that have gone the route of removing the asset tests and increasing the income thresholds, we're getting close to effectively already having UBI. A "true" UBI isn't phased-out directly, but rather is merely eclipsed by marginal taxes, but the end-result is pretty similar. It's not money in your pocket to spend on whatever you want, but it's a substantial safety net. I guess the real mental switch is instead of allocating these subsidies to specific buckets like "food", "health care", "housing", and having massive programs to administer and oversee the spending, can government actually get its head around the concept of just writing a check to be spent however? Maybe the problem is... who are the special interests greasing the wheels in congress to get the subsidy passed, when no industry in particular is benefiting from the subsidy?
- henrikschroder 11y ago
  Aren't we writing a check to be spent however already for senior citizens?

phd514 11y ago

There are actually different justifications for your examples above. For example, we don't let people starve because we consider any person, by mere virtue of their existence, as worthy of food. The same is not true for education. We consider the societal effects of an educated populace and workforce as valuable enough to justify the money we spend on it. UBI is not at all more of the same and it absolutely requires justification for its immense cost.

zaroth 11y ago

Between TANF/SNAP and Medicaid expansion -- for the states that have gone the route of removing the asset tests and increasing the income thresholds, we're getting close to effectively already having UBI. A "true" UBI isn't phased-out directly, but rather is merely eclipsed by marginal taxes, but the end-result is pretty similar. It's not money in your pocket to spend on whatever you want, but it's a substantial safety net. I guess the real mental switch is instead of allocating these subsidies to specific buckets like "food", "health care", "housing", and having massive programs to administer and oversee the spending, can government actually get its head around the concept of just writing a check to be spent however? Maybe the problem is... who are the special interests greasing the wheels in congress to get the subsidy passed, when no industry in particular is benefiting from the subsidy?

henrikschroder 11y ago
Aren't we writing a check to be spent however already for senior citizens?