4 ms·

I can't speak for MOST BI fans, but I can tell you my own answer to that question. I believe that (like the rest of the world, but NOT the US) medical care oug

by mcherm 10y ago

I can't speak for MOST BI fans, but I can tell you my own answer to that question. I believe that (like the rest of the world, but NOT the US) medical care ought to be provided to all, so I'd take medical emergencies off the table. I also think it is important that there not be a way to confiscate one's basic income for the repayment of a debt -- everyone gets to keep their basic income no matter what. Furthermore, we need to continue (as we do today) to allow governments to run programs intended to keep the price of food and housing low, like zoning laws requiring developers to produce a certain amount of low-income housing. We also need to continue to provide government sponsored care for those incapable of caring for themselves (for instance, those who need institutional care due to severe mental or physical handicaps). And after that, if we create a basic income that is sufficient to cover basic living expenses, I think we DO get to eliminate much government aid for poverty. Eliminate unemployment insurance (or rather, the mandate to provide it). Eliminate aid to the poor. Eliminate social security. Eliminate a minimum wage. You ask "what do you do when someone on BI has a financial emergency or, as will happen with some regularity, just flat-out blows all their money and now can't afford rent and/or food"? I think that yes, you DO tell them that. You example is someone who says "my car broke down" and I think we, as a society, could leave that person stranded without their own automobile. (Today I know of no government programs to help people whose cars have broken down, so I'm pretty sure we can all agree to live with that.)

extrapickles 10y ago
Basic income should be subject to garnishment, just like any other income. There are limits to the amount that can be garnished (In WA state its 25-35% of total income, depending on type of debts) that would protect them from having it completely taken away. Doughnut holes in benefits always create odd distortions where people would turn down a small raise or increase in hours because they would actually loose money due to the loss of benefits at the higher income level. In this case, it would be people not willing to work as the extra money they would make would go mostly to the debt rather than their pocket.

by mcherm 10y ago

extrapickles 10y ago

Basic income should be subject to garnishment, just like any other income. There are limits to the amount that can be garnished (In WA state its 25-35% of total income, depending on type of debts) that would protect them from having it completely taken away. Doughnut holes in benefits always create odd distortions where people would turn down a small raise or increase in hours because they would actually loose money due to the loss of benefits at the higher income level. In this case, it would be people not willing to work as the extra money they would make would go mostly to the debt rather than their pocket.