15 ms·

The thing I'd like to see is government services that will optionally replace portions of your Basic Income. If you're having problems feeding yourself, I woul

The thing I'd like to see is government services that will optionally replace portions of your Basic Income. If you're having problems feeding yourself, I would like to see an opt-in program where you can receive food, in exchange for $X out of your BI. If you're having problems housing yourself, an opt-in program for housing in exchange for $Y out of your BI. The same options should be available for all the necessities (clothes, food, water, shelter, communications, and savings). The sum of these government services should sum to your total BI grant, so if you opt-in to all government services you have the basics of survival totally covered but receive no direct BI.

parennoob 10y ago
The agencies required to maintain all these services will come at a cost though; and I bet that removes the "Well, we won't have to maintain thousands of agencies for giving these specific kinds of aid" argument in favor of BI. That having been said, I personally like this idea a lot. Maybe the balance between the two can be adjusted by cutting out (the market rate + agency cost) out of your BI – i.e. If a month's cheap food is $200 at cost, if you participate in a food stamp program, it takes $250 out of your BI (since a bunch of people have to be employed to verify things about it). That way, people will be more motivated to not use the government agencies since they get a better deal by just saving that amount out of their BI.
- clort 10y ago
  Hm, except that this seems to penalize people at the bottom who cannot adequately manage their own finances and I'm not sure I'm completely comfortable with that. In the UK currently, we do that by things like having pre-pay meters for electricity - but the pre-pay electricity costs more even though you paid for it up front! (there are other similar scenarios, where poor people are penalized because they haven't a positive credit report) I don't know the answer though; I think what ncallaway suggested was to provide it at-cost which seems fair (also, the bulk-buying power of a food kitchen means that it should not really cost any more - in fact it may cost less than doing it yourself)
  - dv_dt 10y ago
    People who can't manage their own finances also tend to do badly at acquiring program support when aid comes in other forms too. However, it might be an improvement in overall effectiveness for charities to operate in models which charge part of the money from a basic income stream to administer aid (it greatly simplifies effort for charities which would normally have to devote a lot of attention to just getting together funding). On the other hand, being able to 'sign over' a portion of one's basic income might open up all sorts of other abuses. (e.g. some sort of payday loan company that says, sign over your Basic Income for a year and I'll give you a lump sum right now...)
    - ncallaway 10y ago
      I would make it illegal and unenforceable for BI to be used as collateral for any financial transactions. Much in the same way that your IRA cannot be used to secure a loan [1], I would prohibit BI funds from being used to secure loans in any way. [1] IRS Publication 590, "Prohibited Transactions", https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p590a.pdf https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p590a.pdf
  - parennoob 10y ago
    I think BI definitely presupposes adequate management of your own finances. At some point it is a bit of a carrot and stick approach – maybe something like if you are on the food program for more than 3 years, then you start paying more for it, or something of the sort? I'm not sure. > In the UK currently, we do that by things like having pre-pay meters for electricity - but the pre-pay electricity costs more even though you paid for it up front! Given this information, I don't see how it is similar. It seems more like stupidity of the part of British Gas or whoever. Are the prepay meters used by poorer families who get subsidies paid directly into those meters or something?
    - clort 10y ago
      No, they are often present in properties where the tenants have had trouble paying the bills in the past for whatever reason. As I understand it, they are very difficult to get rid of even for new occupants. The electricity supplier gets more for the same electricity at no risk. Thats not actually stupid.. but in my opinion, it is in some way evil.
jamiequint 10y ago
The thing is that with Basic Income these no longer need to be Government Services, they can be private services if the government just guarantees private organizations opt-in access to a piece of the paycheck prior to its distribution.
- morgante 10y ago
  That seems ideal. Essentially, allow people to pre-commit to paying for a specific expense to a private organization which has to provide that service. They can opt out later on, but only before their next basic income check. Also, I think there should be some sort of auto-enrollment system. So if you're found homeless, having blown all your BI check on booze, you'd be automatically enrolled in the top housing provider.
  - zanny 10y ago
    "Top" is relative, you can be at least given the choice of provider, but I am absolutely certain in a UBI scenario offering your UBI for simple living provided for you would be a huge industry, and would also account for anyone who cannot manage money like OP says just fine.
  - sounds 10y ago
    One question this raises is the frequency of the BI check. I think many people would need a BI deposit weekly.
    - morgante 10y ago
      I think weekly would probably be ideal. In a few years, we could even make it daily so it's as close to a continuous stream as possible.
      - Roboprog 10y ago
        How about 3 times a day, while we are at it :-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverworld#Grails https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverworld#Grails
robbiemitchell 10y ago
Why would it be better for the government to provide this than the existing food distribution and supply chain? Not unlikely scenario: some department is created to handle these necessities, they hire a bunch of people for terrible admin jobs, and they still sub-contract a bunch of the specific work to private companies.
- naasking 10y ago
  > Why would it be better for the government to provide this than the existing food distribution and supply chain? It probably isn't, but one possibility is that the government would be such a huge customer, that they have significant negotiating power. Per-unit costs would consequently be much lower.
  - the_watcher 10y ago
    > Per-unit costs would consequently be much lower. The government is notoriously bad at this.
  - todd8 10y ago
    Yeah, just like the military spending $600 on a toilet seat. The problem is that spending other people's money is easy.
blktiger 10y ago
This makes sense to me because I have a feeling most people who would need to rely on BI also have a problem managing money. As an example, I once had a homeless guy ask me for money outside a grocery store. I suggested that we go inside and get him whatever food he wanted, and he said he'd wait for me outside. Sure enough he was gone by the time I returned. I'm fairly certain he only wanted the money for alcohol or drugs. That kind of person doesn't save money for food, they beg for food and use the money for other purposes. If you made the program automatically adjust your BI down when you started accepting food from government programs, that would basically act as the government stepping in for people who just aren't able to handle money.
- khedoros 10y ago
  As a counter-example, I had a similar experience with a mother and her daughter, except that they were still there when I came back out and were thankful for the food. I'm not saying that they're not bad at managing money (maybe they are), but there are more than one group contained within the label "that kind of person". I've had other experiences with homeless men turning down food when I offered it. I know that my father-in-law would be (and has been, in the past) happy on the street, using his money for cigarettes and gambling with his friends. There are a lot of different kinds of people that would need to be accounted for and different motivations.
  - blktiger 10y ago
    Agreed, which is why I prefer to provide goods rather than money. Plus I usually don't carry cash anyway.
    - KC8ZKF 10y ago
      But the alcoholic might need the drink more than food, and the drug addict might need the drugs more than a place to live. Perhaps not being sick for a couple more hours is the best thing for them at that moment. I'm not suggesting that you are under some moral obligation to buy them drugs, only that not giving them anything is not a moral position in itself.
the_watcher 10y ago
> I would like to see an opt-in program where you can receive food, in exchange for $X out of your BI. Doesn't this already exist? You can exchange $X for food at stores, restaurants, etc. Why make a program that just turns the government into a grocery store?
- ncallaway 10y ago
  The difference is that this comes out the BI before it is given to you as cash. $X is a fixed-price out of the BI, that provides a fixed amount of foodstuffs. That is, if my monthly BI payment is $800 I can opt to receive a monthly BI payment of $600 and also be guaranteed to receive enough basic foodstuffs to survive for the month. I would also set these up to draw off the next month's BI payment, effectively allowing you access to short-term credit for groceries. If we are in mid-june and I've run-out of money, I can start the government foods program immediately, taking the funding out of my July BI check. These services would be intended for people who are having a hard-time managing their finances in a responsible-way. Grocery stores neither help people manage their money or provide short-term credit solutions.
  - RangerScience 10y ago
    That sounds like asking for trouble. Like payday loans - starts as a good idea that can help people, ends up as a system with the effect of luring people into massive dept.
    - ncallaway 10y ago
      Sure. The problem with a PayDay loan is that it replaces future capital with capital today. For the small percent of people who have serial problems managing their capital, giving them capital is the worst thing you can do. This causes people to get trapped in a cycle. The key difference here is you replace future-capital with the goods or services directly. It's much harder to turn food and/or rent back into capital, and then mismanage it.
      - 10y ago
gremlinsinc 10y ago
The problem with this is that it negates one of the biggest benefits of BI -- getting rid of red tape and bloat. Printing and mailing checks can be done almost fully automated and would close down millions of welfare buildings, and give people back dignity. There's a stigma that you get when you're on public assistance or welfare. It creates a feeling of less self-worth. This causes you to believe that the best job you'll ever get is McDonald's - so why even try to better your circumstance. GBI on the other hand goes to everyone - even the wealthy. The message is that we're all equal and it's basically a reverse citizen tax on the government to ensure everyone can live and grow in nurtured environments. The world I see in the next 20 years - there will be no more truck drivers. Fast food restaurants will be run by 1 manager alone. Gas stations will be ran by self-serve kiosks, and be fully automated, as will be grocery stores - including re-stocking. Other jobs that will be gone: Surgeons / Doctors (probably not fully but the need will be a lot less because of AI like Watson, where you once needed 30+ doctors in a hospital you might need only 3 or 4.), construction workers, trash trucks, oil rig workers, fishing, pilots, military (replaced by drones / droids), manufacturing, etc... We will move from a society where it's expected that everyone work 40+ hours and sometimes two jobs to meet basic needs to a society where work is optional, and 20 hours is the norm. More focus and time is spent with family and having experiences that truly enrich one's life. GBI gives people the freedom to also pursue entrepreneurism, startup ideas, music, art, writing, and any other number of hobbies and past times that could enrich society in general. Studies have shown that truly happy people aren't the ones who have the most 'stuff' it's the people who experience the most that life has to offer (i.e. traveling, events, concerts, etc...) For us to get to GBI we need to hurry up the automation revolution -- I'm a Bernie Sanders supporter, and progressive democrat who's FOR robots at Wendy's and McDonald's as well as a $15+min wage... I see it coming. 40% of jobs will be gone by 2030 and never replaced. The faster we tip the scale and hit the dirt the faster government will need to respond or there will be riots when people are starving and losing jobs left and right. It needs to get worse before it can get better essentially.
- DrScump 10y ago
  <millions of welfare buildings> millions? <We will move from a society where it's expected that everyone work 40+ hours and sometimes two jobs to meet basic needs to a society where work is optional, and 20 hours is the norm.> "We'll lose a bundle on each recipient, but we'll make it up in volume."
ams6110 10y ago
The overhead for something like that would be huge. The goal of BI is to reduce overhead.
dclowd9901 10y ago
How funny, we have the same idea, but I think it's going to be market driven, but kind of like obamacare, where its opt-out with a basic provider given to everyone.
godspiral 10y ago
UBI does have the advantage of making every single government program funded equally by everyone. An alternative to any government cost is a higher dividend cheque to all. To use your idea though, you could join a voluntary mutualized/cooperative consumer union that buys food in bulk discounts to distribute to members, or pools 5-20 peoples UBI to buy a very large house.

parennoob 10y ago

The agencies required to maintain all these services will come at a cost though; and I bet that removes the "Well, we won't have to maintain thousands of agencies for giving these specific kinds of aid" argument in favor of BI. That having been said, I personally like this idea a lot. Maybe the balance between the two can be adjusted by cutting out (the market rate + agency cost) out of your BI – i.e. If a month's cheap food is $200 at cost, if you participate in a food stamp program, it takes $250 out of your BI (since a bunch of people have to be employed to verify things about it). That way, people will be more motivated to not use the government agencies since they get a better deal by just saving that amount out of their BI.

clort 10y ago
Hm, except that this seems to penalize people at the bottom who cannot adequately manage their own finances and I'm not sure I'm completely comfortable with that. In the UK currently, we do that by things like having pre-pay meters for electricity - but the pre-pay electricity costs more even though you paid for it up front! (there are other similar scenarios, where poor people are penalized because they haven't a positive credit report) I don't know the answer though; I think what ncallaway suggested was to provide it at-cost which seems fair (also, the bulk-buying power of a food kitchen means that it should not really cost any more - in fact it may cost less than doing it yourself)
- dv_dt 10y ago
  People who can't manage their own finances also tend to do badly at acquiring program support when aid comes in other forms too. However, it might be an improvement in overall effectiveness for charities to operate in models which charge part of the money from a basic income stream to administer aid (it greatly simplifies effort for charities which would normally have to devote a lot of attention to just getting together funding). On the other hand, being able to 'sign over' a portion of one's basic income might open up all sorts of other abuses. (e.g. some sort of payday loan company that says, sign over your Basic Income for a year and I'll give you a lump sum right now...)
  - ncallaway 10y ago
    I would make it illegal and unenforceable for BI to be used as collateral for any financial transactions. Much in the same way that your IRA cannot be used to secure a loan [1], I would prohibit BI funds from being used to secure loans in any way. [1] IRS Publication 590, "Prohibited Transactions", https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p590a.pdf https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p590a.pdf
- parennoob 10y ago
  I think BI definitely presupposes adequate management of your own finances. At some point it is a bit of a carrot and stick approach – maybe something like if you are on the food program for more than 3 years, then you start paying more for it, or something of the sort? I'm not sure. > In the UK currently, we do that by things like having pre-pay meters for electricity - but the pre-pay electricity costs more even though you paid for it up front! Given this information, I don't see how it is similar. It seems more like stupidity of the part of British Gas or whoever. Are the prepay meters used by poorer families who get subsidies paid directly into those meters or something?
  - clort 10y ago
    No, they are often present in properties where the tenants have had trouble paying the bills in the past for whatever reason. As I understand it, they are very difficult to get rid of even for new occupants. The electricity supplier gets more for the same electricity at no risk. Thats not actually stupid.. but in my opinion, it is in some way evil.

jamiequint 10y ago

The thing is that with Basic Income these no longer need to be Government Services, they can be private services if the government just guarantees private organizations opt-in access to a piece of the paycheck prior to its distribution.

morgante 10y ago
That seems ideal. Essentially, allow people to pre-commit to paying for a specific expense to a private organization which has to provide that service. They can opt out later on, but only before their next basic income check. Also, I think there should be some sort of auto-enrollment system. So if you're found homeless, having blown all your BI check on booze, you'd be automatically enrolled in the top housing provider.
- zanny 10y ago
  "Top" is relative, you can be at least given the choice of provider, but I am absolutely certain in a UBI scenario offering your UBI for simple living provided for you would be a huge industry, and would also account for anyone who cannot manage money like OP says just fine.
- sounds 10y ago
  One question this raises is the frequency of the BI check. I think many people would need a BI deposit weekly.
  - morgante 10y ago
    I think weekly would probably be ideal. In a few years, we could even make it daily so it's as close to a continuous stream as possible.
    - Roboprog 10y ago
      How about 3 times a day, while we are at it :-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverworld#Grails https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverworld#Grails

robbiemitchell 10y ago

Why would it be better for the government to provide this than the existing food distribution and supply chain? Not unlikely scenario: some department is created to handle these necessities, they hire a bunch of people for terrible admin jobs, and they still sub-contract a bunch of the specific work to private companies.

naasking 10y ago
> Why would it be better for the government to provide this than the existing food distribution and supply chain? It probably isn't, but one possibility is that the government would be such a huge customer, that they have significant negotiating power. Per-unit costs would consequently be much lower.
- the_watcher 10y ago
  > Per-unit costs would consequently be much lower. The government is notoriously bad at this.
- todd8 10y ago
  Yeah, just like the military spending $600 on a toilet seat. The problem is that spending other people's money is easy.

blktiger 10y ago

This makes sense to me because I have a feeling most people who would need to rely on BI also have a problem managing money. As an example, I once had a homeless guy ask me for money outside a grocery store. I suggested that we go inside and get him whatever food he wanted, and he said he'd wait for me outside. Sure enough he was gone by the time I returned. I'm fairly certain he only wanted the money for alcohol or drugs. That kind of person doesn't save money for food, they beg for food and use the money for other purposes. If you made the program automatically adjust your BI down when you started accepting food from government programs, that would basically act as the government stepping in for people who just aren't able to handle money.

khedoros 10y ago
As a counter-example, I had a similar experience with a mother and her daughter, except that they were still there when I came back out and were thankful for the food. I'm not saying that they're not bad at managing money (maybe they are), but there are more than one group contained within the label "that kind of person". I've had other experiences with homeless men turning down food when I offered it. I know that my father-in-law would be (and has been, in the past) happy on the street, using his money for cigarettes and gambling with his friends. There are a lot of different kinds of people that would need to be accounted for and different motivations.
- blktiger 10y ago
  Agreed, which is why I prefer to provide goods rather than money. Plus I usually don't carry cash anyway.
  - KC8ZKF 10y ago
    But the alcoholic might need the drink more than food, and the drug addict might need the drugs more than a place to live. Perhaps not being sick for a couple more hours is the best thing for them at that moment. I'm not suggesting that you are under some moral obligation to buy them drugs, only that not giving them anything is not a moral position in itself.

the_watcher 10y ago

> I would like to see an opt-in program where you can receive food, in exchange for $X out of your BI. Doesn't this already exist? You can exchange $X for food at stores, restaurants, etc. Why make a program that just turns the government into a grocery store?

ncallaway 10y ago
The difference is that this comes out the BI before it is given to you as cash. $X is a fixed-price out of the BI, that provides a fixed amount of foodstuffs. That is, if my monthly BI payment is $800 I can opt to receive a monthly BI payment of $600 and also be guaranteed to receive enough basic foodstuffs to survive for the month. I would also set these up to draw off the next month's BI payment, effectively allowing you access to short-term credit for groceries. If we are in mid-june and I've run-out of money, I can start the government foods program immediately, taking the funding out of my July BI check. These services would be intended for people who are having a hard-time managing their finances in a responsible-way. Grocery stores neither help people manage their money or provide short-term credit solutions.
- RangerScience 10y ago
  That sounds like asking for trouble. Like payday loans - starts as a good idea that can help people, ends up as a system with the effect of luring people into massive dept.
  - ncallaway 10y ago
    Sure. The problem with a PayDay loan is that it replaces future capital with capital today. For the small percent of people who have serial problems managing their capital, giving them capital is the worst thing you can do. This causes people to get trapped in a cycle. The key difference here is you replace future-capital with the goods or services directly. It's much harder to turn food and/or rent back into capital, and then mismanage it.
    - 10y ago

gremlinsinc 10y ago

The problem with this is that it negates one of the biggest benefits of BI -- getting rid of red tape and bloat. Printing and mailing checks can be done almost fully automated and would close down millions of welfare buildings, and give people back dignity. There's a stigma that you get when you're on public assistance or welfare. It creates a feeling of less self-worth. This causes you to believe that the best job you'll ever get is McDonald's - so why even try to better your circumstance. GBI on the other hand goes to everyone - even the wealthy. The message is that we're all equal and it's basically a reverse citizen tax on the government to ensure everyone can live and grow in nurtured environments. The world I see in the next 20 years - there will be no more truck drivers. Fast food restaurants will be run by 1 manager alone. Gas stations will be ran by self-serve kiosks, and be fully automated, as will be grocery stores - including re-stocking. Other jobs that will be gone: Surgeons / Doctors (probably not fully but the need will be a lot less because of AI like Watson, where you once needed 30+ doctors in a hospital you might need only 3 or 4.), construction workers, trash trucks, oil rig workers, fishing, pilots, military (replaced by drones / droids), manufacturing, etc... We will move from a society where it's expected that everyone work 40+ hours and sometimes two jobs to meet basic needs to a society where work is optional, and 20 hours is the norm. More focus and time is spent with family and having experiences that truly enrich one's life. GBI gives people the freedom to also pursue entrepreneurism, startup ideas, music, art, writing, and any other number of hobbies and past times that could enrich society in general. Studies have shown that truly happy people aren't the ones who have the most 'stuff' it's the people who experience the most that life has to offer (i.e. traveling, events, concerts, etc...) For us to get to GBI we need to hurry up the automation revolution -- I'm a Bernie Sanders supporter, and progressive democrat who's FOR robots at Wendy's and McDonald's as well as a $15+min wage... I see it coming. 40% of jobs will be gone by 2030 and never replaced. The faster we tip the scale and hit the dirt the faster government will need to respond or there will be riots when people are starving and losing jobs left and right. It needs to get worse before it can get better essentially.

DrScump 10y ago
<millions of welfare buildings> millions? <We will move from a society where it's expected that everyone work 40+ hours and sometimes two jobs to meet basic needs to a society where work is optional, and 20 hours is the norm.> "We'll lose a bundle on each recipient, but we'll make it up in volume."

ams6110 10y ago

The overhead for something like that would be huge. The goal of BI is to reduce overhead.

dclowd9901 10y ago

How funny, we have the same idea, but I think it's going to be market driven, but kind of like obamacare, where its opt-out with a basic provider given to everyone.

godspiral 10y ago

UBI does have the advantage of making every single government program funded equally by everyone. An alternative to any government cost is a higher dividend cheque to all. To use your idea though, you could join a voluntary mutualized/cooperative consumer union that buys food in bulk discounts to distribute to members, or pools 5-20 peoples UBI to buy a very large house.