4 ms·

Sorry to be annoying on this topic, but: This is explicitly one of the goals of replacing the current social safety nets with UBI. UBI can't replace social sa

Sorry to be annoying on this topic, but: This is explicitly one of the goals of replacing the current social safety nets with UBI. UBI can't replace social safety nets. It's impossible. 12k for every adult is 3 trillion dollars, which almost always assumes cutting other programs. What about healthcare? I bet most would rather have comprehensive health coverage instead of 12k every year, but you can't have both. In the US we have neither. You'd have to lose safety nets to make UBI work, financially. If you can show otherwise, do you mind explaining it?

lovich 9y ago
part of our high healthcare costs are from not using a universal system. Other Western countries are achieving same or better outcomes with far less costs. I do agree that UBI will not work if we leave some of the things we consider basics now, such as food, housing, or(in my opinion) basic healthcare to be provided by competitive corporations, then we are essentially just going to be putting the money in their pockets
- specialist 9y ago
  I really wish critiques would go birdseye. We're talking about radically restructuring our economy. Don't hold back. UBI burden assumes current costs. That's short sighted. -- Transitioning to single payer (medicare for all) would 1/2 our costs, at least. This is a no brainer, comparing Canada & USA's per capita spending. I believe, but cannot prove, that adopting capitation model (incentivize wellness vs fee for service, treating disease) would knockoff another 1/2. I think we'll still pay more than other countries, because we fund so much research, use some much more new tech. Which I wholeheartedly support. -- Food costs can be brought way down thru better logistics, incentives, thereby reducing food waste. Ending subsidies for corn, wheat, soya, diary would reduce food waste and improve public health. A double win. -- The USA has more housing than people. If people didn't need to relocate for jobs, allowing people to go to the available housing, per capita spending would also plummet.
learc83 9y ago
No serious plan for UBI comes without progressive tax increases, so that at some income threshold you start paying more in additional taxes than you receive in UBI. 3 trillion isn't anywhere close to the actual cost when you consider this.
fpig 9y ago
What do you mean by safety nets? If you mean economic need-based programs, so something like "if you earn less than X, you get Y for free", UBI generally assumes the elimination of all such programs, so yes, it does assume cutting other programs. In fact one of the goals of UBI is to replace many complicated welfare trap-generating programs with a single non-welfare-trap one, with the advantage of also eliminating the bureaucracy that those need-based programs require.
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  What I mean is it is no way those targeted programs can be replaced with UBI. If someone is getting 30k of value from an existing or existing welfare programs, cutting it back to 12k removes their social safety net, regardless of the straight cash they get. Worse, if they run out of that, they really have no safety net remaining.
  - plushpuffin 9y ago
    How does UBI take into account mental incompetence, addictions, poor decision-making, bad luck, and bad investments, and where do you draw the line? Don't a lot of welfare payments have strings attached, with regard to what you can spend it on? UBI explicitly does not, so you can use it for anything you want. If UBI did completely replace the social safety net, and someone gambles/fritters away their basic income and can't get a job to make more, are they allowed to starve (or depend completely on private charity)?
    - ThrustVectoring 9y ago
      Same way Social Security works - with the exception of federal taxes and criminal judgements, SS payments are largely exempt from garnishment or other actions to seize assets to repay debts. You can't lose your UBI by taking a loan and gambling the proceeds away, because the debtor cannot force you to use UBI to repay the loan.
      - plushpuffin 9y ago
rhizome 9y ago
It's pretty simple the way I see it: the military and associated agencies are ripe for a budget cut.

lovich 9y ago

part of our high healthcare costs are from not using a universal system. Other Western countries are achieving same or better outcomes with far less costs. I do agree that UBI will not work if we leave some of the things we consider basics now, such as food, housing, or(in my opinion) basic healthcare to be provided by competitive corporations, then we are essentially just going to be putting the money in their pockets

specialist 9y ago
I really wish critiques would go birdseye. We're talking about radically restructuring our economy. Don't hold back. UBI burden assumes current costs. That's short sighted. -- Transitioning to single payer (medicare for all) would 1/2 our costs, at least. This is a no brainer, comparing Canada & USA's per capita spending. I believe, but cannot prove, that adopting capitation model (incentivize wellness vs fee for service, treating disease) would knockoff another 1/2. I think we'll still pay more than other countries, because we fund so much research, use some much more new tech. Which I wholeheartedly support. -- Food costs can be brought way down thru better logistics, incentives, thereby reducing food waste. Ending subsidies for corn, wheat, soya, diary would reduce food waste and improve public health. A double win. -- The USA has more housing than people. If people didn't need to relocate for jobs, allowing people to go to the available housing, per capita spending would also plummet.

learc83 9y ago

No serious plan for UBI comes without progressive tax increases, so that at some income threshold you start paying more in additional taxes than you receive in UBI. 3 trillion isn't anywhere close to the actual cost when you consider this.

fpig 9y ago

What do you mean by safety nets? If you mean economic need-based programs, so something like "if you earn less than X, you get Y for free", UBI generally assumes the elimination of all such programs, so yes, it does assume cutting other programs. In fact one of the goals of UBI is to replace many complicated welfare trap-generating programs with a single non-welfare-trap one, with the advantage of also eliminating the bureaucracy that those need-based programs require.

aaron-lebo 9y ago
What I mean is it is no way those targeted programs can be replaced with UBI. If someone is getting 30k of value from an existing or existing welfare programs, cutting it back to 12k removes their social safety net, regardless of the straight cash they get. Worse, if they run out of that, they really have no safety net remaining.
- plushpuffin 9y ago
  How does UBI take into account mental incompetence, addictions, poor decision-making, bad luck, and bad investments, and where do you draw the line? Don't a lot of welfare payments have strings attached, with regard to what you can spend it on? UBI explicitly does not, so you can use it for anything you want. If UBI did completely replace the social safety net, and someone gambles/fritters away their basic income and can't get a job to make more, are they allowed to starve (or depend completely on private charity)?
  - ThrustVectoring 9y ago
    Same way Social Security works - with the exception of federal taxes and criminal judgements, SS payments are largely exempt from garnishment or other actions to seize assets to repay debts. You can't lose your UBI by taking a loan and gambling the proceeds away, because the debtor cannot force you to use UBI to repay the loan.
    - plushpuffin 9y ago

rhizome 9y ago

It's pretty simple the way I see it: the military and associated agencies are ripe for a budget cut.