3 ms·

You'd adjust the tax system to compensate for most of that. The idea is that it reduces administration costs, eliminates poverty traps, and reduces the stigma

You'd adjust the tax system to compensate for most of that. The idea is that it reduces administration costs, eliminates poverty traps, and reduces the stigma of unemployment.

michaelt 10y ago
Reducing administration costs and adjusting the tax system isn't going to help a disabled veteran who needs more than $10,000 to afford a wheelchair-adapted vehicle, or a quadriplegic who needs more than $10,000 to pay for a carer to visit them at work to help them use the toilet twice a day. I'm no expert in politics, but I think if their benefits were cut they would probably protest, and the protesters would look very sympathetic. And if we say "OK, we'll have some extra funding for legitimate expenses for the legitimately disabled" you're not going to be able to do away with administration costs.
- aninhumer 10y ago
  I don't disagree. I'm not as cavalier about replacing all social support with basic income, and disability should probably remain separate. You won't completely eliminate administration costs, but not having to administer unemployment and pensions will help a lot. (And personally I see the other benefits as more important to society.)
- WalterSear 10y ago
  This is a strawman. Basic income isn't some libertarian pipe dream of replacing the government with an ATM. Obviously there are many services that can't be replaced or eliminated.
- ebalit 10y ago
  There is more problem with means testing than with needs testing. The government can subsidies wheelchair-adapted vehicles to cost as much as a normal vehicle. Why someone that doesn't need a special vehicle would use the subsidy? The normal car fit their needs for the same price! And it's not even accounting the more probable situation in which the subsidy doesn't cover all the cost difference.
acchow 10y ago
And allows you to eliminate minimum wage, so if a mom-and-pop shop wants someone stocking shelves at $2.50/hour and someone is willing to do that to supplement their (sufficient) minimum income, they can agree to that.

You'd adjust the tax system to compensate for most of that. The idea is that it reduces administration costs, eliminates poverty traps, and reduces the stigma of unemployment.

michaelt 10y ago

Reducing administration costs and adjusting the tax system isn't going to help a disabled veteran who needs more than $10,000 to afford a wheelchair-adapted vehicle, or a quadriplegic who needs more than $10,000 to pay for a carer to visit them at work to help them use the toilet twice a day. I'm no expert in politics, but I think if their benefits were cut they would probably protest, and the protesters would look very sympathetic. And if we say "OK, we'll have some extra funding for legitimate expenses for the legitimately disabled" you're not going to be able to do away with administration costs.

aninhumer 10y ago
I don't disagree. I'm not as cavalier about replacing all social support with basic income, and disability should probably remain separate. You won't completely eliminate administration costs, but not having to administer unemployment and pensions will help a lot. (And personally I see the other benefits as more important to society.)
WalterSear 10y ago
This is a strawman. Basic income isn't some libertarian pipe dream of replacing the government with an ATM. Obviously there are many services that can't be replaced or eliminated.
ebalit 10y ago
There is more problem with means testing than with needs testing. The government can subsidies wheelchair-adapted vehicles to cost as much as a normal vehicle. Why someone that doesn't need a special vehicle would use the subsidy? The normal car fit their needs for the same price! And it's not even accounting the more probable situation in which the subsidy doesn't cover all the cost difference.

acchow 10y ago

And allows you to eliminate minimum wage, so if a mom-and-pop shop wants someone stocking shelves at $2.50/hour and someone is willing to do that to supplement their (sufficient) minimum income, they can agree to that.