3 ms·

I'm guessing criminals (current and former), drug addicts, and the willfully unemployed wouldn't be eligible. These are the vulnerable, marginalized and (somet

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.

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.