9 ms·

No UBI. The problem with UBI is social programs. we spend billions on safety nets for specific cases and purposes. safe nets for food. safety nets for healthcar

No UBI. The problem with UBI is social programs. we spend billions on safety nets for specific cases and purposes. safe nets for food. safety nets for healthcare. safety nets so parents can feed their children. this is a good thing. this helps people do something they may not have been able to do basic income does not replace any of these safety nets. you will still have to have them. UBI is just increasing taxes i’d rather add more safety nets to help those really in need than raise taxes to pay everyone some small amount

flashman 8y ago
Here's the thing, UBI will be used to argue that other social interventions and support are no longer necessary. "We're giving you free money, and you want more?" UBI is a convenient way for the wealthy classes to wash their hands of the poor without having to give up too much of their wealth. Not to mention it will probably be provided by a government donor corporation in the form of a cashless card with moralistic restrictions on how the income can be spent (e.g. no alcohol or legal cannabis).
contravariant 8y ago
What confuses me about most discussions on this is the automatic assumption that taxes need to be raised to get UBI. Both sides seem to implicitly take this for granted, whereas it's fairly trivial to rework income tax to introduce UBI without anyone having a net difference in earnings. Of course the real question is whether doing this would allow you to actually simplify anything, or if it's possible to simplify taxes with only minor (or desired) changes in net income.
xapata 8y ago
Some people prefer to sleep outside and spend their money on booze and drugs instead of food. If that's their choice, who are we to say they're misguided? A basic income can eliminate many wasteful bureaucratic policies, leaving more money to spend on what folks want.
- DougN7 8y ago
  I (somewhat tongue in cheek) wonder how all those bureaucrats that’s we’ll get rid of will make a living. :)
scotty79 8y ago
> basic income does not replace any of these safety nets. But it lessens the burden on all of them.
lwansbrough 8y ago
If somebody can’t find work, it would take a lot of social programs to ensure they can live. And I’m not convinced a state is more effective at spending the money than individuals are. Social programs are a huge spend and the quality of the programs leaves a lot to be desired (governments aren’t exactly known for being cost effective.)
tathougies 8y ago
I mean, replacing food stamps with thousands of dollars a month means the money could be spent buying food. I'm confused why you would think a UBI would not be allowed to be used to purchase food? The libertarian perspective on this is that we shouldn't tell people how to spend their money. If they can't afford food because they have no money, then give them money. Those who buy food will not starve. Those who don't, will, but they can't say they weren't able to buy food.
- extralego 8y ago
  What is the difference between the libertarian perspective and anarchy?
  - jnwatson 8y ago
    Property rights pretty much.
  - tathougies 8y ago
    Libertarians believe that government is necessary as the only means of justifiable force, but that the government ought to be only as large as necessary to provide the force necessary to protect individual rights. Anarchists believe there ought to be no government at all. If you can't see the difference still, I would recommend picking up a book. Hacker news is not the place to learn about various political philosophies.
  - krapp 8y ago
    Libertarians consider government to be a necessary evil, anarchists consider it an unnecessary evil.
- foolfoolz 8y ago
  financial responsibility cannot be bought with UBI. ignoring how incredibly unlikely it is we would ever cancel social programs on a mass scale, let’s say we did. your example of people starving is good. in that world you get to eat only if you are financially responsible. in the current world everyone gets to eat (or we try to feed the hungry) i think the current model is way more humane. and we will never cancel social programs to have a less humane society
dragonwriter 8y ago
> basic income does not replace any of these safety nets. Yes, it does, in the same way that any other income already does, which is why those all tend to be means-tested programs. > you will still have to have them. No, you won't, once the UBI level is above the income level at which the programs would not be available.
ttonkytonk 8y ago
So your safety nets for those "who really need it" are more expensive because of the bureaucracy needed to determine this. Furthermore it becomes a disincentive to accept work (as the article states) and rewards dishonesty i.e. "working the system".
krapp 8y ago
>basic income does not replace any of these safety nets. you will still have to have them No, you would repeal all existing social and welfare programs, the minimum wage and employer healthcare, and replace them with a bare minimal UBI. At least in the US, there is no other implementation that would be palatable to conservatives, business and most voters.
- DougN7 8y ago
  So what happens to the addict (drugs, gambling, whatever) that blows their UBI? Do we let them die in the streets with lack of medical care? Let their children starve? How about the homeless in (any super expensive city that still won’t be able to afford housing there, yet for whatever reason won’t leave? No, we’ll STILL need safety nets even with UBI.
  - krapp 8y ago
    Morally, you're right... we should have both. Politically, however, it would be infeasible to sell UBI as anything but a means of cutting back the existing social welfare infrastructure in order to reduce taxes and the size of government. We can't have both so long as a significant number of voters want neither.

flashman 8y ago

Here's the thing, UBI will be used to argue that other social interventions and support are no longer necessary. "We're giving you free money, and you want more?" UBI is a convenient way for the wealthy classes to wash their hands of the poor without having to give up too much of their wealth. Not to mention it will probably be provided by a government donor corporation in the form of a cashless card with moralistic restrictions on how the income can be spent (e.g. no alcohol or legal cannabis).

contravariant 8y ago

What confuses me about most discussions on this is the automatic assumption that taxes need to be raised to get UBI. Both sides seem to implicitly take this for granted, whereas it's fairly trivial to rework income tax to introduce UBI without anyone having a net difference in earnings. Of course the real question is whether doing this would allow you to actually simplify anything, or if it's possible to simplify taxes with only minor (or desired) changes in net income.

xapata 8y ago

Some people prefer to sleep outside and spend their money on booze and drugs instead of food. If that's their choice, who are we to say they're misguided? A basic income can eliminate many wasteful bureaucratic policies, leaving more money to spend on what folks want.

DougN7 8y ago
I (somewhat tongue in cheek) wonder how all those bureaucrats that’s we’ll get rid of will make a living. :)

scotty79 8y ago

> basic income does not replace any of these safety nets. But it lessens the burden on all of them.

lwansbrough 8y ago

If somebody can’t find work, it would take a lot of social programs to ensure they can live. And I’m not convinced a state is more effective at spending the money than individuals are. Social programs are a huge spend and the quality of the programs leaves a lot to be desired (governments aren’t exactly known for being cost effective.)

tathougies 8y ago

I mean, replacing food stamps with thousands of dollars a month means the money could be spent buying food. I'm confused why you would think a UBI would not be allowed to be used to purchase food? The libertarian perspective on this is that we shouldn't tell people how to spend their money. If they can't afford food because they have no money, then give them money. Those who buy food will not starve. Those who don't, will, but they can't say they weren't able to buy food.

extralego 8y ago
What is the difference between the libertarian perspective and anarchy?
- jnwatson 8y ago
  Property rights pretty much.
- tathougies 8y ago
  Libertarians believe that government is necessary as the only means of justifiable force, but that the government ought to be only as large as necessary to provide the force necessary to protect individual rights. Anarchists believe there ought to be no government at all. If you can't see the difference still, I would recommend picking up a book. Hacker news is not the place to learn about various political philosophies.
- krapp 8y ago
  Libertarians consider government to be a necessary evil, anarchists consider it an unnecessary evil.
foolfoolz 8y ago
financial responsibility cannot be bought with UBI. ignoring how incredibly unlikely it is we would ever cancel social programs on a mass scale, let’s say we did. your example of people starving is good. in that world you get to eat only if you are financially responsible. in the current world everyone gets to eat (or we try to feed the hungry) i think the current model is way more humane. and we will never cancel social programs to have a less humane society

dragonwriter 8y ago

> basic income does not replace any of these safety nets. Yes, it does, in the same way that any other income already does, which is why those all tend to be means-tested programs. > you will still have to have them. No, you won't, once the UBI level is above the income level at which the programs would not be available.

ttonkytonk 8y ago

So your safety nets for those "who really need it" are more expensive because of the bureaucracy needed to determine this. Furthermore it becomes a disincentive to accept work (as the article states) and rewards dishonesty i.e. "working the system".

krapp 8y ago

>basic income does not replace any of these safety nets. you will still have to have them No, you would repeal all existing social and welfare programs, the minimum wage and employer healthcare, and replace them with a bare minimal UBI. At least in the US, there is no other implementation that would be palatable to conservatives, business and most voters.

DougN7 8y ago
So what happens to the addict (drugs, gambling, whatever) that blows their UBI? Do we let them die in the streets with lack of medical care? Let their children starve? How about the homeless in (any super expensive city that still won’t be able to afford housing there, yet for whatever reason won’t leave? No, we’ll STILL need safety nets even with UBI.
- krapp 8y ago
  Morally, you're right... we should have both. Politically, however, it would be infeasible to sell UBI as anything but a means of cutting back the existing social welfare infrastructure in order to reduce taxes and the size of government. We can't have both so long as a significant number of voters want neither.