3 ms·

The major issue with basic income is what to do with all the government programs that provide safety nets for low income folks. Will a basic income supplant th

The major issue with basic income is what to do with all the government programs that provide safety nets for low income folks. Will a basic income supplant those programs or be another addition to those programs?

zlynx 9y ago
The only way universal basic income even approaches making sense is if it replaces _everything_ else. No housing benefits, education benefits, welfare, unemployment or social security. Dump it all. Yes, instead of living in large urban centers, unemployed poor people would have to move to smaller places with low costs of living. This is a good thing, really. And without price supports through unlimited government loans, schools will have to become cheaper. Those associate professors of English lit who are so abused by the current system can live on BI plus cheap tuition in addition to online classes. But of course it's all politics and I'm sure it will be impossible to pass a reasonable, cost neutral plan. Instead people will find ways to pile on the bureaucracy until it is less annoying to just go to work and get paid than it is to fill out all of the BI paperwork and file it with six different agencies. The easy idea of just creating a virtual bank account at birth linked to a SS number or equivalent is so simple it's just a non-starter. And I've tried to convince people that means-testing and such is a waste of money and time but no, plenty of people see BI as welfare and want drug testing and means testing for it. Bah! Give Bill Gates his $20K per year. Who cares if he doesn't need it!?
- usrusr 9y ago
  I'd say "almost everything", since UBI would never pay for serious disability care and the like. But there should be heavy, even unfair consequences for relying on that kind of extra support, so that people self-select instead of being admitted or rejected by some authority. Replacing some or all of the UBI stipend with goods and services might be a way. I think that a similar programme could also be necessary for people who can absolutely not trust themselves with money, and strong rules against abusing future UBI as collateral in loans (as in "if you lend to a non-earner you are out of luck", not as in "if you promise someone your future UBI you not only owe them, but also a hefty fine to the state").
WalterSear 9y ago
It replaces all the other financial safety nets, but not all social services, such as universal health care. The savings involved in dismantling the corpulent bureaucracy currently managing and adjudicating benefits will actually go a significant way towards paying for UBI. IMHO, ideally, UBI would be sacrosanct, and could not be legally garnished to service any debt. This would prevent if from being used as collateral, and ensure that it would remain available to support the individual - people would not be able to ever get themselves into such debt that they became a burden on society, since they could never borrow against it. Moreover, it may be better method for managing inflation than our current setup of anointed central banks making themselves money out of thin air: Instead of passing out money to the banks, in order to generate velocity, deliver it to the citizens in the form of a deposit into some form of money market account, thereby immediately putting it into circulation in the economy.
dragonwriter 9y ago
The simple solution (and the one that allows smooth transition with a ramp up of universal income) is that the universal income counts as income for existing income-qualified programs. As it ramps up, it displaces them and, eventually, they can be folded entirely, some much sooner than others.

zlynx 9y ago

The only way universal basic income even approaches making sense is if it replaces _everything_ else. No housing benefits, education benefits, welfare, unemployment or social security. Dump it all. Yes, instead of living in large urban centers, unemployed poor people would have to move to smaller places with low costs of living. This is a good thing, really. And without price supports through unlimited government loans, schools will have to become cheaper. Those associate professors of English lit who are so abused by the current system can live on BI plus cheap tuition in addition to online classes. But of course it's all politics and I'm sure it will be impossible to pass a reasonable, cost neutral plan. Instead people will find ways to pile on the bureaucracy until it is less annoying to just go to work and get paid than it is to fill out all of the BI paperwork and file it with six different agencies. The easy idea of just creating a virtual bank account at birth linked to a SS number or equivalent is so simple it's just a non-starter. And I've tried to convince people that means-testing and such is a waste of money and time but no, plenty of people see BI as welfare and want drug testing and means testing for it. Bah! Give Bill Gates his $20K per year. Who cares if he doesn't need it!?

usrusr 9y ago
I'd say "almost everything", since UBI would never pay for serious disability care and the like. But there should be heavy, even unfair consequences for relying on that kind of extra support, so that people self-select instead of being admitted or rejected by some authority. Replacing some or all of the UBI stipend with goods and services might be a way. I think that a similar programme could also be necessary for people who can absolutely not trust themselves with money, and strong rules against abusing future UBI as collateral in loans (as in "if you lend to a non-earner you are out of luck", not as in "if you promise someone your future UBI you not only owe them, but also a hefty fine to the state").

WalterSear 9y ago

It replaces all the other financial safety nets, but not all social services, such as universal health care. The savings involved in dismantling the corpulent bureaucracy currently managing and adjudicating benefits will actually go a significant way towards paying for UBI. IMHO, ideally, UBI would be sacrosanct, and could not be legally garnished to service any debt. This would prevent if from being used as collateral, and ensure that it would remain available to support the individual - people would not be able to ever get themselves into such debt that they became a burden on society, since they could never borrow against it. Moreover, it may be better method for managing inflation than our current setup of anointed central banks making themselves money out of thin air: Instead of passing out money to the banks, in order to generate velocity, deliver it to the citizens in the form of a deposit into some form of money market account, thereby immediately putting it into circulation in the economy.

dragonwriter 9y ago

The simple solution (and the one that allows smooth transition with a ramp up of universal income) is that the universal income counts as income for existing income-qualified programs. As it ramps up, it displaces them and, eventually, they can be folded entirely, some much sooner than others.