3 ms·

This is going to replace what was regular income with large one time payments. This is like giving small lottery wins. People will think they're rich in the be

by icc97 9y ago

This is going to replace what was regular income with large one time payments. This is like giving small lottery wins. People will think they're rich in the beginning, blow it all and then have nothing to fall back on. Basic income should be the same as regular work income that comes in once a month for living off.

croon 9y ago
Income/salary is a large one time payment (once a month, or bi-weekly), for work you do every day. I don't disagree with your assessment of this being a problem, but increasing overhead by splitting up payments to solve an issue that's inherently behavioral seems counterproductive to me.
- notahacker 9y ago
  A payment which is once a month is not a one time payment. A grant which is once a lifetime is. Someone squandering the former has an opportunity to rectify their mistake the following month. And more generally, if the once a lifetime universal grants are competing for budget and theoretical purpose with hardship funds, unemployment benefits and entitlement to free government services, the distributional effects are going to heavily favour the lucky and financially secure over the unlucky and financially insecure.
  - croon 9y ago
    > A payment which is once a month is not a one time payment. A grant which is once a lifetime is. What I responded to that you wrote, and what the article suggests, is: > This is going to replace what was regular income with large one time payments. If they are plural they are no longer one time. And if they are no longer one time, it's just a matter of scope size when discussing frequency. I'm not trying to sound robotic, but there's no functional difference between getting 6x twice a year and getting 1x 12 times a year. The difference is psychological.
    - icc97 9y ago
      It is two payments over two years. So it's 1 payment per year. Yes it's psychological, but that's the problem people are weak at saving for the future. It's allowing people to make a mistake 12x bigger.

by icc97 9y ago

croon 9y ago

Income/salary is a large one time payment (once a month, or bi-weekly), for work you do every day. I don't disagree with your assessment of this being a problem, but increasing overhead by splitting up payments to solve an issue that's inherently behavioral seems counterproductive to me.

notahacker 9y ago
A payment which is once a month is not a one time payment. A grant which is once a lifetime is. Someone squandering the former has an opportunity to rectify their mistake the following month. And more generally, if the once a lifetime universal grants are competing for budget and theoretical purpose with hardship funds, unemployment benefits and entitlement to free government services, the distributional effects are going to heavily favour the lucky and financially secure over the unlucky and financially insecure.
- croon 9y ago
  > A payment which is once a month is not a one time payment. A grant which is once a lifetime is. What I responded to that you wrote, and what the article suggests, is: > This is going to replace what was regular income with large one time payments. If they are plural they are no longer one time. And if they are no longer one time, it's just a matter of scope size when discussing frequency. I'm not trying to sound robotic, but there's no functional difference between getting 6x twice a year and getting 1x 12 times a year. The difference is psychological.
  - icc97 9y ago
    It is two payments over two years. So it's 1 payment per year. Yes it's psychological, but that's the problem people are weak at saving for the future. It's allowing people to make a mistake 12x bigger.