4 ms·

> 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 t

> 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.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  You could also just give people a one-way election to have the UBI. $10,000/year starting right now has a higher net present value for anyone not at/near retirement than ~$17,000/year (the average social security benefit) starting at age 65, especially when opting out of social security means you no longer have to pay social security tax. Then make the hard cut off something like age 30, even though most people under ~50 would still choose the UBI. And "what if someone was getting $60K" is not a thing that actually happens. The maximum monthly social security retirement benefit at full retirement age is $2788, less than $33,500/year. $10,000 is not much less than what many people live on from their full time jobs. In combination with even modest retirement savings, it's plenty to live on in a low cost of living area, and people who desire more can save more or supplement it by teaching at a community college or local high school. If you want to live your retirement in Manhattan or San Francisco without working then you'll need a lot of retirement savings, no different than it is now. The existing design of social security is quite ridiculous and should be changed. A safety net shouldn't be giving more to wealthier people than poorer people. If the payment is good enough for the poor then it's good enough for the rich. Anyone who made a lot of money and wants to live a lavish retirement has every opportunity to have saved up.

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.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago
You could also just give people a one-way election to have the UBI. $10,000/year starting right now has a higher net present value for anyone not at/near retirement than ~$17,000/year (the average social security benefit) starting at age 65, especially when opting out of social security means you no longer have to pay social security tax. Then make the hard cut off something like age 30, even though most people under ~50 would still choose the UBI. And "what if someone was getting $60K" is not a thing that actually happens. The maximum monthly social security retirement benefit at full retirement age is $2788, less than $33,500/year. $10,000 is not much less than what many people live on from their full time jobs. In combination with even modest retirement savings, it's plenty to live on in a low cost of living area, and people who desire more can save more or supplement it by teaching at a community college or local high school. If you want to live your retirement in Manhattan or San Francisco without working then you'll need a lot of retirement savings, no different than it is now. The existing design of social security is quite ridiculous and should be changed. A safety net shouldn't be giving more to wealthier people than poorer people. If the payment is good enough for the poor then it's good enough for the rich. Anyone who made a lot of money and wants to live a lavish retirement has every opportunity to have saved up.