4 ms·

One commenter on Reddit notes the "programs provide a necessary relief, but they definitely aren't built to help people truly improve their circumstances in sus

by blfr 8y ago

One commenter on Reddit notes the "programs provide a necessary relief, but they definitely aren't built to help people truly improve their circumstances in sustainable and lasting ways." They're probably not designed at all. There is no grand plan anywhere. Regulations are a hodgepodge of legislation and executive decisions made by people with conflicting incentives, little to no feedback and expertise, limited resources, and very real abuse/exploitation.

jnwatson 8y ago
I’m not completely in the UBI (Universal Basic Income) camp, however your comment made me realize how much better UBI would work. There would be no step functions, no mishmash of overlapping agencies, no complicated eligibility tests, no massive bureaucracy to navigate.
- marcell 8y ago
  It’s a terrible way to solve the problem. If someone has $20k/yr of benefits from Medicaid what are they going to do on $10k/yr of UBI?
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    > If someone has $20k/yr of benefits from Medicaid what are they going to do on $10k/yr of UBI? Buy health insurance, which costs less than $20k/year (because the average person receives less than that amount in benefits).
    - marcell 8y ago
      This is dodging the question. For one thing, The price you pay for health insurance is not the same as it’s cost. The price of insurance is lower than the price of care because people who are healthy buy insurance. Moreover, the general point stands: what does UBI do for people who currently receive more $ benefits than what the UBI level would be?
      - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
        > For one thing, The price you pay for health insurance is not the same as it’s cost. The price of insurance is lower than the price of care because people who are healthy buy insurance. That's the point. It doesn't cost $20,000/person to provide Medicaid because healthy people are eligible for Medicaid. If you take average amount of money and hand it to the same people as cash, it should be the amount needed to buy the equivalent insurance. But then people have the option to buy only catastrophic coverage and put the rest of money in their pocket, if that's what they want to do, which should on average save money (and in the catastrophe case you still have the catastrophic coverage). > Moreover, the general point stands: what does UBI do for people who currently receive more $ benefits than what the UBI level would be? Half the point is to get rid of that sort of thing. Someone who makes $35,000 shouldn't ever be receiving more government assistance than someone who makes $15,000, because they have $20,000 more of their own money to spend on whatever it is. The purpose of a UBI is income redistribution, not insurance against misfortune. If you want insurance you use your money to buy insurance.
        marcell 8y ago
        > The purpose of a UBI is income redistribution, not insurance against misfortune. If you want insurance you take your money and buy insurance with it. While this approach sounds good on paper it wouldn't work in real life. Another example--what if I'm getting the equivalent of $50k/yr in unemployment benefits under Social Security? That becomes $10k/yr under UBI. Or someone getting $60k/yr on Social Security retirement income--again $10k/yr under UBI. Yes, you can say "Well you should save for retirement." Well, what about all the people who hit 65, and haven't saved for retirement? Or all the people who get laid off and don't have more than 2 weeks of savings? Tough luck?
        chii 8y ago
        I can imagine there's some sort of grandfathering rule for existing pensioners, but there has to be a cut off somehow. For example, those who are 10 yrs away from retirement will be told when UBI starts, so they can prep ahead of time (assuming 10 yrs is "enough", if not, then make this number higher). It's not as if the day UBI starts is also going to be the day everything else suddenly stops. The transition period can be made longer or more gradual.
- usaar333 8y ago
  Yes, UBI is much less distorting. Of course that said much welfare and tax policy is intentionally designed to distort society's preferences.

by blfr 8y ago

jnwatson 8y ago

I’m not completely in the UBI (Universal Basic Income) camp, however your comment made me realize how much better UBI would work. There would be no step functions, no mishmash of overlapping agencies, no complicated eligibility tests, no massive bureaucracy to navigate.

marcell 8y ago
It’s a terrible way to solve the problem. If someone has $20k/yr of benefits from Medicaid what are they going to do on $10k/yr of UBI?
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  > If someone has $20k/yr of benefits from Medicaid what are they going to do on $10k/yr of UBI? Buy health insurance, which costs less than $20k/year (because the average person receives less than that amount in benefits).
  - marcell 8y ago
    This is dodging the question. For one thing, The price you pay for health insurance is not the same as it’s cost. The price of insurance is lower than the price of care because people who are healthy buy insurance. Moreover, the general point stands: what does UBI do for people who currently receive more $ benefits than what the UBI level would be?
    - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
      > For one thing, The price you pay for health insurance is not the same as it’s cost. The price of insurance is lower than the price of care because people who are healthy buy insurance. That's the point. It doesn't cost $20,000/person to provide Medicaid because healthy people are eligible for Medicaid. If you take average amount of money and hand it to the same people as cash, it should be the amount needed to buy the equivalent insurance. But then people have the option to buy only catastrophic coverage and put the rest of money in their pocket, if that's what they want to do, which should on average save money (and in the catastrophe case you still have the catastrophic coverage). > Moreover, the general point stands: what does UBI do for people who currently receive more $ benefits than what the UBI level would be? Half the point is to get rid of that sort of thing. Someone who makes $35,000 shouldn't ever be receiving more government assistance than someone who makes $15,000, because they have $20,000 more of their own money to spend on whatever it is. The purpose of a UBI is income redistribution, not insurance against misfortune. If you want insurance you use your money to buy insurance.
      - marcell 8y ago
        > The purpose of a UBI is income redistribution, not insurance against misfortune. If you want insurance you take your money and buy insurance with it. While this approach sounds good on paper it wouldn't work in real life. Another example--what if I'm getting the equivalent of $50k/yr in unemployment benefits under Social Security? That becomes $10k/yr under UBI. Or someone getting $60k/yr on Social Security retirement income--again $10k/yr under UBI. Yes, you can say "Well you should save for retirement." Well, what about all the people who hit 65, and haven't saved for retirement? Or all the people who get laid off and don't have more than 2 weeks of savings? Tough luck?
        chii 8y ago
        I can imagine there's some sort of grandfathering rule for existing pensioners, but there has to be a cut off somehow. For example, those who are 10 yrs away from retirement will be told when UBI starts, so they can prep ahead of time (assuming 10 yrs is "enough", if not, then make this number higher). It's not as if the day UBI starts is also going to be the day everything else suddenly stops. The transition period can be made longer or more gradual.
usaar333 8y ago
Yes, UBI is much less distorting. Of course that said much welfare and tax policy is intentionally designed to distort society's preferences.