4 ms·

Isn't the question "Why should we pay a basic income" instead of "Why should we receive"? No amount of "should receive" can balance zero amount of "should pay".

by ominous 10y ago

Isn't the question "Why should we pay a basic income" instead of "Why should we receive"? No amount of "should receive" can balance zero amount of "should pay". The ones that pay are the ones that need convincing. Unless both amounts are zero: zero reasons to pay and zero reasons to receive is a fine solution.

_rpd 10y ago
The version of basic income advocated by some conservatives abolishes all other welfare programs to fund basic income, the idea being to eliminate expenditure on means testing overhead.
- seoguru 10y ago
  yes. which is why the UBI has been called an unholy alliance or trojan horse. The Job Guarantee at a living wage is a better solution, it's also counter-cyclical and not inflationary (assuming useful work is done, and we have a lot that needs doing).
- nonsince 10y ago
  But I'm a wooly liberal and I agree with that, if you keep the BI high enough to truly replace the need for it. I would rather everyone had a basic, flat rate that had basically 0 bureaucratic expense to dole out. Maybe you could have a pension-like program where if you are over retirement age or can't work you get extra pay, but any more complexity than that is probably not worth the wastage that comes with it. If I'm missing something here, please tell me.
  - _rpd 10y ago
    There are a couple of issues. The first is that the means testing ensures that a small minority of the population receives welfare. If you dissolve the entire apparatus, and distribute the proceeds to all working adults then, in the US, it only comes out to something like $5-6k per year per person. Certainly below the 'living wage' $15/hr = $30k/yr + 'cost of living' adjustments that some are calling for (although this would require almost triple current tax revenues). The second is that each and every welfare program is the end result of a hard fought political battle, and not a single program will go quietly into the good night. The optics of people suffering due to a particular lost welfare program will receive orders of magnitude more attention than the provision of basic income, no matter how generous. Basic income will become status quo, but sharp recriminations will go on, until at last each and every program will be reestablished. This is more likely the closer the level of basic income is to the $5k "cost saver."

by ominous 10y ago

_rpd 10y ago

The version of basic income advocated by some conservatives abolishes all other welfare programs to fund basic income, the idea being to eliminate expenditure on means testing overhead.

seoguru 10y ago
yes. which is why the UBI has been called an unholy alliance or trojan horse. The Job Guarantee at a living wage is a better solution, it's also counter-cyclical and not inflationary (assuming useful work is done, and we have a lot that needs doing).
nonsince 10y ago
But I'm a wooly liberal and I agree with that, if you keep the BI high enough to truly replace the need for it. I would rather everyone had a basic, flat rate that had basically 0 bureaucratic expense to dole out. Maybe you could have a pension-like program where if you are over retirement age or can't work you get extra pay, but any more complexity than that is probably not worth the wastage that comes with it. If I'm missing something here, please tell me.
- _rpd 10y ago
  There are a couple of issues. The first is that the means testing ensures that a small minority of the population receives welfare. If you dissolve the entire apparatus, and distribute the proceeds to all working adults then, in the US, it only comes out to something like $5-6k per year per person. Certainly below the 'living wage' $15/hr = $30k/yr + 'cost of living' adjustments that some are calling for (although this would require almost triple current tax revenues). The second is that each and every welfare program is the end result of a hard fought political battle, and not a single program will go quietly into the good night. The optics of people suffering due to a particular lost welfare program will receive orders of magnitude more attention than the provision of basic income, no matter how generous. Basic income will become status quo, but sharp recriminations will go on, until at last each and every program will be reestablished. This is more likely the closer the level of basic income is to the $5k "cost saver."