4 ms·

The byline appears to have a redundancy, or a contradiction: >There is an increasing global conversation about the idea of a ‘Universal Basic Income’ – a unive

The byline appears to have a redundancy, or a contradiction: >There is an increasing global conversation about the idea of a ‘Universal Basic Income’ – a universal weekly payment to all eligible citizens. Wouldn't everyone be eligible for a universal basic income? Are all persons eligible citizens? Is the article actually talking about an ‘Eligible Citizens' Basic Income’?

hermannj314 10y ago
I'm guessing criminals (current and former), drug addicts, and the willfully unemployed wouldn't be eligible. These are the vulnerable, marginalized and (sometimes) disenfranchised groups that America loves to shit on when it comes to social programs and basic rights.
- josscrowcroft 10y ago
  > "I'm guessing criminals (current and former), drug addicts, and the willfully unemployed wouldn't be eligible." I believe "criminals (current and former), drug addicts, and the willfully unemployed" are all eligible under most proposed schemes, although the income level may differ for current prisoners. Edit: according to the RSA blog introducing their proposal: "Prisoners would not receive it." https://www.thersa.org/discover/publications-and-articles/rsa-blogs/2015/12/in-support-of-a-universal-basic-income--introducing-the-rsa-basic-income-model/ https://www.thersa.org/discover/publications-and-articles/rs... > "These are the vulnerable, marginalized and (sometimes) disenfranchised groups that America loves to shit on when it comes to social programs and basic rights." The RSA (publisher of this report) is British.
  - hermannj314 10y ago
    I know. I have no doubt the British have a sensible system that treats human beings with dignity. I was speaking about US hypothetically. I would think when the state acts as ward to an individual, the agency would receive the BI on their behalf. I've always felt basic income would greatly simplify many funding / administrative questions. Perhaps my view is too simplistic.
    - c22 10y ago
      > I would think when the state acts as ward to an individual, the agency would receive the BI on their behalf. Probably not a good idea if we want to see our prison population lessen in the future.
- delecti 10y ago
  If anything, currently imprisoned criminals should definitely keep receiving at least some of their UBI, so they can land on their feet when they're released rather than just resorting to crime again. I see no reason why we should exclude drug addicts. What level of drug do you start to count against a person? More people die from alcohol than marijuana, and I barely know anybody who isn't on some level addicted to caffeine. Prescription opiates are entirely legal, but lots of people are addicted to those. The willfully unemployed are more or less the entire point of UBI. The theory is that as society increasingly moves towards automation, there will be fewer and fewer jobs, making the willfully unemployed a rapidly growing segment of the population, and that's a good thing as it will allow people to do with their time what they will.
drcube 10y ago
My guess is they're just hedging their bets with regard to wording. Presumably, there will be some crimes that entail losing your basic income, and it's probably up in the air whether the basic income will apply in whole or in part to children. So "eligible citizens" in this case probably means "almost everybody, minus a few exceptions the legislature will certainly come up with".
notahacker 10y ago
If you make literally everyone eligible for a basic income, you run into the small problem of the world's GDP per capita being around $13k in US purchasing power: around the levels generally proposed for a BI in a developed country. It's obviously not feasible to promise everyone that indefinitely with no strings attached so long as they turn up in your country and ask for it. Simplest solution is to make it passport based. This particular proposal appears to insist that young people prove they deserve it too...

hermannj314 10y ago

I'm guessing criminals (current and former), drug addicts, and the willfully unemployed wouldn't be eligible. These are the vulnerable, marginalized and (sometimes) disenfranchised groups that America loves to shit on when it comes to social programs and basic rights.

josscrowcroft 10y ago
> "I'm guessing criminals (current and former), drug addicts, and the willfully unemployed wouldn't be eligible." I believe "criminals (current and former), drug addicts, and the willfully unemployed" are all eligible under most proposed schemes, although the income level may differ for current prisoners. Edit: according to the RSA blog introducing their proposal: "Prisoners would not receive it." https://www.thersa.org/discover/publications-and-articles/rsa-blogs/2015/12/in-support-of-a-universal-basic-income--introducing-the-rsa-basic-income-model/ https://www.thersa.org/discover/publications-and-articles/rs... > "These are the vulnerable, marginalized and (sometimes) disenfranchised groups that America loves to shit on when it comes to social programs and basic rights." The RSA (publisher of this report) is British.
- hermannj314 10y ago
  I know. I have no doubt the British have a sensible system that treats human beings with dignity. I was speaking about US hypothetically. I would think when the state acts as ward to an individual, the agency would receive the BI on their behalf. I've always felt basic income would greatly simplify many funding / administrative questions. Perhaps my view is too simplistic.
  - c22 10y ago
    > I would think when the state acts as ward to an individual, the agency would receive the BI on their behalf. Probably not a good idea if we want to see our prison population lessen in the future.
delecti 10y ago
If anything, currently imprisoned criminals should definitely keep receiving at least some of their UBI, so they can land on their feet when they're released rather than just resorting to crime again. I see no reason why we should exclude drug addicts. What level of drug do you start to count against a person? More people die from alcohol than marijuana, and I barely know anybody who isn't on some level addicted to caffeine. Prescription opiates are entirely legal, but lots of people are addicted to those. The willfully unemployed are more or less the entire point of UBI. The theory is that as society increasingly moves towards automation, there will be fewer and fewer jobs, making the willfully unemployed a rapidly growing segment of the population, and that's a good thing as it will allow people to do with their time what they will.

drcube 10y ago

My guess is they're just hedging their bets with regard to wording. Presumably, there will be some crimes that entail losing your basic income, and it's probably up in the air whether the basic income will apply in whole or in part to children. So "eligible citizens" in this case probably means "almost everybody, minus a few exceptions the legislature will certainly come up with".

notahacker 10y ago

If you make literally everyone eligible for a basic income, you run into the small problem of the world's GDP per capita being around $13k in US purchasing power: around the levels generally proposed for a BI in a developed country. It's obviously not feasible to promise everyone that indefinitely with no strings attached so long as they turn up in your country and ask for it. Simplest solution is to make it passport based. This particular proposal appears to insist that young people prove they deserve it too...