4 ms·

> and no mention if this would affect welfare and other social programs. Which is quite surprising because every, and I mean every, UBI proposal talks up how m

by xienze 9y ago

> and no mention if this would affect welfare and other social programs. Which is quite surprising because every, and I mean every, UBI proposal talks up how much money we'd _save_ because welfare would be eliminated. I just don't see how that's possible, because inevitably there are going to be a lot of people with real or self-imposed crises crying about how they don't have enough money to pay rent or buy food, and what is the government going to do, tell them "tough shit, you should've managed your UBI better"? Uh, I doubt it. We'll end up stuck with welfare programs as a UBI safety net and then people will inevitably game the system by crying broke every single month. This whole thing is such a ridiculous leftist fantasy, the biggest giveaway is that it completely ignores basic human behavior.

appearsonline 9y ago
One wonders which humans you surround yourself with to consider that "basic human behavior".
- xienze 9y ago
  Trying to maximize earnings is basic human behavior, sorry to break it to you. Welfare scams occur regularly, and that's before UBI. And you're dodging the bigger question: I'm on UBI and my money runs out, can't afford to feed the kids. Multiply that by at least several thousand people every month. Now what?
  - MarchHare 9y ago
    Food banks exist already, why would UBI change that.
  - jpindar 9y ago
    Same as now. You don't get more food stamps just because you ran out.
    - xienze 9y ago
      The difference is it's earmarked money today. There's no potential to spend your food money on a phone and then claim you can't buy food at the end of the month.
      - kirsebaer 9y ago
        Most countries just give cash to people without income, they don't bother with a separate food program. That seems to work fine.
  - irb 9y ago
    How can maximising earnings be basic human behaviour when 'earnings' have only existed for a few thousand years, a tiny fraction of the history of our species?
0xfeba 9y ago
And the right's fantasy? Everyone has a right to a gun, but we can't trust them with money.
IanCal 9y ago
> I just don't see how that's possible, because inevitably there are going to be a lot of people with real or self-imposed crises crying about how they don't have enough money to pay rent or buy food, and what is the government going to do, tell them "tough shit, you should've managed your UBI better"? In the UK, many welfare payments go directly to the person, so this wouldn't be a new issue. Many of them are designed really just to ensure a floor people don't drop below, but combined with exceptionally high marginal tax rates and odd conditions. The marginal tax rate in many cases is 100%, and can be above this.
- xienze 9y ago
  > In the UK, many welfare payments go directly to the person, so this wouldn't be a new issue. Not sure what you mean by this. The issue is that currently welfare payments are earmarked: this money can only be used for rent, this money can only be used for food, etc. By eliminating our existing welfare programs, as is the case with every UBI proposal, we would instead be giving a single check and saying "manage this money wisely and pay your expenses." The problem is that when the money isn't earmarked for a specific purpose you can't be sure that the basic necessities are actually paid for before the money runs out. Just ignoring the fraud angle (spend all the money and claim an emergency makes you unable to pay for rent), how do you deal with someone having a _real_ emergency, having to spend all their UBI, and then being unable to pay for rent? Tell them tough shit? That's not what's going to happen.
  - IanCal 9y ago
    > Not sure what you mean by this. The issue is that currently welfare payments are earmarked: this money can only be used for rent, this money can only be used for food, etc. I mean this is often not the case in the UK. We don't have food stamps and housing benefit is afaik generally paid directly to the person, not the landlord.
  - jpindar 9y ago
    > Tell them tough shit? That's not what's going to happen. That's what happens now, whether the person gets money from a job or from any kind of benefits. Why should it change? It's called 'Basic Income', not 'Basic Relax All Your Needs Will Be Met'.
jrs95 9y ago
It's not really a ridiculous leftist fantasy, it was originally a conservative idea as an alternative to the welfare state. And as for what to do when people say they can't afford X, you raise the payouts so they can (if they really can't afford it).

by xienze 9y ago

appearsonline 9y ago

One wonders which humans you surround yourself with to consider that "basic human behavior".

xienze 9y ago
Trying to maximize earnings is basic human behavior, sorry to break it to you. Welfare scams occur regularly, and that's before UBI. And you're dodging the bigger question: I'm on UBI and my money runs out, can't afford to feed the kids. Multiply that by at least several thousand people every month. Now what?
- MarchHare 9y ago
  Food banks exist already, why would UBI change that.
- jpindar 9y ago
  Same as now. You don't get more food stamps just because you ran out.
  - xienze 9y ago
    The difference is it's earmarked money today. There's no potential to spend your food money on a phone and then claim you can't buy food at the end of the month.
    - kirsebaer 9y ago
      Most countries just give cash to people without income, they don't bother with a separate food program. That seems to work fine.
- irb 9y ago
  How can maximising earnings be basic human behaviour when 'earnings' have only existed for a few thousand years, a tiny fraction of the history of our species?

0xfeba 9y ago

And the right's fantasy? Everyone has a right to a gun, but we can't trust them with money.

IanCal 9y ago

> I just don't see how that's possible, because inevitably there are going to be a lot of people with real or self-imposed crises crying about how they don't have enough money to pay rent or buy food, and what is the government going to do, tell them "tough shit, you should've managed your UBI better"? In the UK, many welfare payments go directly to the person, so this wouldn't be a new issue. Many of them are designed really just to ensure a floor people don't drop below, but combined with exceptionally high marginal tax rates and odd conditions. The marginal tax rate in many cases is 100%, and can be above this.

xienze 9y ago
> In the UK, many welfare payments go directly to the person, so this wouldn't be a new issue. Not sure what you mean by this. The issue is that currently welfare payments are earmarked: this money can only be used for rent, this money can only be used for food, etc. By eliminating our existing welfare programs, as is the case with every UBI proposal, we would instead be giving a single check and saying "manage this money wisely and pay your expenses." The problem is that when the money isn't earmarked for a specific purpose you can't be sure that the basic necessities are actually paid for before the money runs out. Just ignoring the fraud angle (spend all the money and claim an emergency makes you unable to pay for rent), how do you deal with someone having a _real_ emergency, having to spend all their UBI, and then being unable to pay for rent? Tell them tough shit? That's not what's going to happen.
- IanCal 9y ago
  > Not sure what you mean by this. The issue is that currently welfare payments are earmarked: this money can only be used for rent, this money can only be used for food, etc. I mean this is often not the case in the UK. We don't have food stamps and housing benefit is afaik generally paid directly to the person, not the landlord.
- jpindar 9y ago
  > Tell them tough shit? That's not what's going to happen. That's what happens now, whether the person gets money from a job or from any kind of benefits. Why should it change? It's called 'Basic Income', not 'Basic Relax All Your Needs Will Be Met'.

jrs95 9y ago

It's not really a ridiculous leftist fantasy, it was originally a conservative idea as an alternative to the welfare state. And as for what to do when people say they can't afford X, you raise the payouts so they can (if they really can't afford it).