5 ms·

>Furthermore, the Swiss proposal seems to involve implementing a basic income in addition to their currently existing welfare system. Few libertarians would be

>Furthermore, the Swiss proposal seems to involve implementing a basic income in addition to their currently existing welfare system. Few libertarians would be willing to sign up for that deal. But as a replacement for traditional welfare programs, there is a lot for libertarians to like about a basic income. Is there any conceivable political world in which UBI is set up as a replacement for the current costly welfare system, and stays that way for more than two weeks? Imagine the headlines: - This poor single mother spent her UBI on lottery tickets, now her four kids are starving! - He got hit by a car. Now this man has to choose between hospital bills and food! - You won't believe which filthy-rich billionaire is pocketing his UBI check instead of donating it to charity! It's hard to envision an outcome in which the public isn't immediately clamoring for adjustments, deductions, and exceptions to try to tweak the UBI system to be more fair. I'm sympathetic to the concept of UBI, especially the method of reducing waste as described in the article. But I can't help but feel that these "UBI will replace the welfare system" articles are inherently dishonest by promising an unstable house-of-cards outcome to a political bloc just to get their support for something that they wouldn't support otherwise.

sp332 9y ago
If a single mother is spending all her money on lottery tickets, the amount of money she has is not the problem. As for billionaires, the policies should be made up on the tax side, not the distribution side. We already have a system for auditing and enforcing tax laws, and that lets us keep the distribution part very simple, and cheap. I don't really know how the current system treats people with high hospital bills, but I think guaranteeing an income from which they could pay a consistent amount every month for the foreseeable future would probably let them come to some arrangement with the hospital.
cam_l 9y ago
The way I always heard it put (by thoughtful libertarians anyway) was that ubi reduces the need for welfare, not that it requires the abolition of it. Agree with what you say otherwise, but I think actually the issue is that radical / neoliberal conservatives are trying to rebrand as the more palatable 'libertarian'. There will always be a need for welfare, ubi changes poverty from a supply side issue to a demand side issue.

sp332 9y ago

If a single mother is spending all her money on lottery tickets, the amount of money she has is not the problem. As for billionaires, the policies should be made up on the tax side, not the distribution side. We already have a system for auditing and enforcing tax laws, and that lets us keep the distribution part very simple, and cheap. I don't really know how the current system treats people with high hospital bills, but I think guaranteeing an income from which they could pay a consistent amount every month for the foreseeable future would probably let them come to some arrangement with the hospital.

cam_l 9y ago

The way I always heard it put (by thoughtful libertarians anyway) was that ubi reduces the need for welfare, not that it requires the abolition of it. Agree with what you say otherwise, but I think actually the issue is that radical / neoliberal conservatives are trying to rebrand as the more palatable 'libertarian'. There will always be a need for welfare, ubi changes poverty from a supply side issue to a demand side issue.