3 ms·

> The money saved eliminating all these programs (and their nontrivial overhead) can be used to give everyone a modest basic income. This isn't really the case

by marcell 10y ago

> The money saved eliminating all these programs (and their nontrivial overhead) can be used to give everyone a modest basic income. This isn't really the case. Basic income is not about cost savings. The programs you mention are wealth transfers, so the overhead is in fact trivial. They take money from person A, and give it to person B. There are checks in place to make sure person B qualifies, which accounts for the overhead. For retirement transfer (social security), you check each persons age--not too hard in America. All those programs would have to be colossally, amazingly inefficient for basic income to be more efficient at redistributing wealth. Out of it's over $1 trillion budget, estimates of administrative overhead are around 1%. Even for more complex programs like foodstamps, overhead is likely low and under 10% [1]. Basic income is about wealth re-distribution, not efficiency. It applies a huge tax increase to the top 10-20% of society, and gives that money to the bottom 80-90%. It's that simple. So the question everyone should ask is: should we have a policy of taking money from the top 10%, and giving it to the bottom 90%? [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/susan-blumenthal/food-stamp-myths_b_1334924.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/susan-blumenthal/food-stamp-my... (not the most reliable source, but best I could find quickly)

massysett 10y ago
Even for Social Security old age benefits, the overhead is a lot more than just checking someone's age. Benefits depend upon how much income someone had during his working years. So those records have to be checked. You also have to make sure people don't get fraudulent benefits. And that's just for old age benefits. For Social Security disability, you have to make sure someone is disabled. For unemployment, you have to make sure they worked in the first place, that they lost their job in a manner that garners them benefits, and their benefit size depends on what their pay was. Making all this work takes bureaucrats, judges to adjudicate claims, and people to investigate fraud. I have no idea whether UBI would be dramatically more efficient but even something like Social Security is far more complex than just checking someone's age.
snarf21 10y ago
I agree with you, taxes on the top are required no matter what. BI has other problems but I thought one of the other benefits of it was that it reduces fraud. You can't game the system as much. Needs based systems are easily defeated and then some of give you money based on your "need". This means you get more than you should (and presumably more than BI would provide). I actually think the best BI approach is like an EITC on steroids. You get all your money back if you are at the super low end and you can also make that a multiplier to encourage filling of lower wage jobs. What I mean by that is that if someone makes $15K a year, they may get 20K + $10K (2/3 earnings) back as a refund (could be quarterly, etc.) Someone who makes $0K a year would just get the $10K. Not well thought out yet but illustrating approach.
petra 10y ago
So so for the sake of political simplicity ,why not just say to the bottom 80% -"let's greatly raise taxes for the rich, and than let's discuss about how to use it to help society "? Sounds like a great political promise. Or maybe there's a problem ?
- morgante 10y ago
  Yet the candidate who basically ran on that platform didn't even make it past the primary while someone doing the opposite is now president. Politics isn't rational.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  The problem is that if you say that, "the rich", who control more economic power than the bottom 80%, will expend considerable resources to discredit your ideas and you personally, and you won't get elected. We have a democratic republic in theory, but very much a plutocratic one in practice.

by marcell 10y ago

massysett 10y ago

Even for Social Security old age benefits, the overhead is a lot more than just checking someone's age. Benefits depend upon how much income someone had during his working years. So those records have to be checked. You also have to make sure people don't get fraudulent benefits. And that's just for old age benefits. For Social Security disability, you have to make sure someone is disabled. For unemployment, you have to make sure they worked in the first place, that they lost their job in a manner that garners them benefits, and their benefit size depends on what their pay was. Making all this work takes bureaucrats, judges to adjudicate claims, and people to investigate fraud. I have no idea whether UBI would be dramatically more efficient but even something like Social Security is far more complex than just checking someone's age.

snarf21 10y ago

I agree with you, taxes on the top are required no matter what. BI has other problems but I thought one of the other benefits of it was that it reduces fraud. You can't game the system as much. Needs based systems are easily defeated and then some of give you money based on your "need". This means you get more than you should (and presumably more than BI would provide). I actually think the best BI approach is like an EITC on steroids. You get all your money back if you are at the super low end and you can also make that a multiplier to encourage filling of lower wage jobs. What I mean by that is that if someone makes $15K a year, they may get 20K + $10K (2/3 earnings) back as a refund (could be quarterly, etc.) Someone who makes $0K a year would just get the $10K. Not well thought out yet but illustrating approach.

petra 10y ago

So so for the sake of political simplicity ,why not just say to the bottom 80% -"let's greatly raise taxes for the rich, and than let's discuss about how to use it to help society "? Sounds like a great political promise. Or maybe there's a problem ?

morgante 10y ago
Yet the candidate who basically ran on that platform didn't even make it past the primary while someone doing the opposite is now president. Politics isn't rational.
dragonwriter 10y ago
The problem is that if you say that, "the rich", who control more economic power than the bottom 80%, will expend considerable resources to discredit your ideas and you personally, and you won't get elected. We have a democratic republic in theory, but very much a plutocratic one in practice.