4 ms·
> "I'm guessing criminals (current and former), drug addicts, and the willfully unemployed wouldn't be eligible." I believe "criminals (current and former), dr
by 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 agoI 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.