4 ms·

I still haven't been able to get a straight answer out of pro-UBI people on what you do when a mother of 4, who was previously receiving food/housing assistance

I still haven't been able to get a straight answer out of pro-UBI people on what you do when a mother of 4, who was previously receiving food/housing assistance for her children blows all the cash. Do we tell them tough? Or do we slowly institute more and more programs to only end up where we are again? Keep in mind that Yang is proposing UBI that would replace all other social / welfare programs.

krapp 7y ago
Why would "we" do anything? Why do opponents of UBI and welfare assume that people being able to misuse the money somehow constitutes an argument against those programs? Why is this theoretical mother of 4 "blowing all the cash" under UBI, but not blowing her food stamps or benefits? Irresponsible people can be irresponsible under any circumstance, but I don't see anyone arguing against capitalism because poor people could spend their paychecks on junk food, booze and lottery tickets. It's only people under welfare who seem to need a paternalistic moral guardian. Give people the money they need to live and let them make their own decisions, accepting that there will always be a limit to what governments and society can do.
- ApolloFortyNine 7y ago
  >I don't see anyone arguing against capitalism because poor people could spend their paychecks on junk food, booze and lottery tickets. This is a horrible example to use when all three are either a topic of debate to be banned, or have been banned in the past.
  - krapp 7y ago
    Fine... substitute those vices with whatever you think irresponsible poor people will blow their UBI benefit on, the argument remains the same.
- tomschlick 7y ago
  Forcing personal responsibility would be great; but I don't see that ever happening in this political climate. I foresee that situation playing out and then we will have legislators grandstanding that not doing something is "taking food out of children's mouths" or something similar. Over time that will lead to more and more programs being reinstated as no legislator will want to be seen not helping children/women/etc and then we are back to where we started, but with the overhead of UBI causing more pain. > It's only people under welfare who seem to need a paternalistic moral guardian. Generally when people ask for a handout from society, society wants to make sure that handout is being used for the things they said it would be used for. There is nothing wrong with that IMO. If you want a blank check that's fine, but you have to be willing to let people starve as a consequence to their actions, with 0 exceptions (from the government) to make it work. Otherwise it will be gamed just like every other program we currently have.
  - mrfusion 7y ago
    It’s a common sentiment to want to control how poor people spend their money. But studies have shown that cash is often best and we can maximize welfare by letting people choose how to spend their money. Here’s some introductory reading. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/407236/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article...
    - tomschlick 7y ago
      While I don't disagree that it can lead to better systems. Most of those "studies" were very small in their test group and wouldn't scale to work for the entire US. There is also the problem that when everyone has an extra $1k in their pocket each month the price of almost everything will rise to consume it.
  - krapp 7y ago
    >Generally when people ask for a handout from society, society wants to make sure that handout is being used for the things they said it would be used for. Welfare isn't people asking for a handout from society, it's a government program paid for with tax dollars. Society can complain about having to pay taxes into welfare programs (and often does) but it no more has the right to complain about what recipients do with the money than employers do about their employees. Also, this becomes a problem in the case of UBI when everyone is getting the handout. >If you want a blank check that's fine, but you have to be willing to let people starve as a consequence to their actions, with 0 exceptions (from the government) to make it work. People already starve as a consequence to their actions, sometimes because the restrictions imposed on welfare programs by society make it infeasible for people in need to actually participate in those programs, other times because of bad decisions. So yeah, I would prefer a blank check, no strings attached, and no moralizing from the crowd that thinks poverty is sin and moral weakness, and that the poor need to be taught a hard lesson before being granted the privilege of a meal.
mrfusion 7y ago
I feel like this is a bit of a straw man argument. We already have laws and safeguards for irresponsible parents.
- tomschlick 7y ago
  The CPS system already can't keep up with the amount of cases they have. I don't think adding more will help.
throwaway_law 7y ago
Its funny how the anti-UBI people always couch their arguments against UBI as in the best interest of irresponsible poor single mothers...as if providing a single mother of 4 with a basic income is in her own worst interest and will lead to irresponsible spending. Let me ask you: what do you do now when a mother of 4 doesn't qualify for SNAP or housing assistance, and her 1,2 or 3 jobs isn't enough to cover rent or put food on the table? What do you do now when a SNAP recipient sells their food card and spends the cash? My general experience is anti-UBI proponents don't even know about these issues, and if they do they both don't give a shit and have no more answers than a pro-UBI person. At the end of the day the current model is failing, I for one would much rather see all the tax breaks offered to the rich be rolled back, including estate taxes and capital gains...because as of now all that was premised on "trickle down economics" or maybe better phrased as poor people can eat the crumbs of the rich, and so far the crumbs haven't made their way down and to date that what the poor have been told..."tough".
- tomschlick 7y ago
  > Its funny how the anti-UBI people always couch their arguments against UBI as in the best interest of irresponsible poor single mothers That's done because those same cases will be used by legislators to justify reinstating these programs after UBI kills them. When they need to drum up public support they always tug at the heartstrings. > what do you do now when a mother of 4 doesn't qualify for SNAP or housing assistance First, I highly doubt a mother of 4 wouldn't qualify for any of those things (net income would be $3,188/mo with 5 members). Second, you seem to think removing SNAP, housing credits, and others and replacing it with $1k/mo would work. I'd argue most of those benefits are worth way more in many cases. In Yang's proposal he would give people the option to choose, which I don't think be adopted very well except for those of us who are already doing just fine and would take the extra money to save/invest. > I for one would much rather see all the tax breaks offered to the rich be rolled back, including estate taxes and capital gains. The top 10% already pays 70.6% of US taxes and the top 1% pays 39% alone. In comparison the bottom 50% pay around 2.8%. What is the magical number that is enough? And when does it become not worth it anymore for those people to reinvest? IMO, the government should never be taking more then 50% of someone's income.

krapp 7y ago

Why would "we" do anything? Why do opponents of UBI and welfare assume that people being able to misuse the money somehow constitutes an argument against those programs? Why is this theoretical mother of 4 "blowing all the cash" under UBI, but not blowing her food stamps or benefits? Irresponsible people can be irresponsible under any circumstance, but I don't see anyone arguing against capitalism because poor people could spend their paychecks on junk food, booze and lottery tickets. It's only people under welfare who seem to need a paternalistic moral guardian. Give people the money they need to live and let them make their own decisions, accepting that there will always be a limit to what governments and society can do.

ApolloFortyNine 7y ago
>I don't see anyone arguing against capitalism because poor people could spend their paychecks on junk food, booze and lottery tickets. This is a horrible example to use when all three are either a topic of debate to be banned, or have been banned in the past.
- krapp 7y ago
  Fine... substitute those vices with whatever you think irresponsible poor people will blow their UBI benefit on, the argument remains the same.
tomschlick 7y ago
Forcing personal responsibility would be great; but I don't see that ever happening in this political climate. I foresee that situation playing out and then we will have legislators grandstanding that not doing something is "taking food out of children's mouths" or something similar. Over time that will lead to more and more programs being reinstated as no legislator will want to be seen not helping children/women/etc and then we are back to where we started, but with the overhead of UBI causing more pain. > It's only people under welfare who seem to need a paternalistic moral guardian. Generally when people ask for a handout from society, society wants to make sure that handout is being used for the things they said it would be used for. There is nothing wrong with that IMO. If you want a blank check that's fine, but you have to be willing to let people starve as a consequence to their actions, with 0 exceptions (from the government) to make it work. Otherwise it will be gamed just like every other program we currently have.
- mrfusion 7y ago
  It’s a common sentiment to want to control how poor people spend their money. But studies have shown that cash is often best and we can maximize welfare by letting people choose how to spend their money. Here’s some introductory reading. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/407236/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article...
  - tomschlick 7y ago
    While I don't disagree that it can lead to better systems. Most of those "studies" were very small in their test group and wouldn't scale to work for the entire US. There is also the problem that when everyone has an extra $1k in their pocket each month the price of almost everything will rise to consume it.
- krapp 7y ago
  >Generally when people ask for a handout from society, society wants to make sure that handout is being used for the things they said it would be used for. Welfare isn't people asking for a handout from society, it's a government program paid for with tax dollars. Society can complain about having to pay taxes into welfare programs (and often does) but it no more has the right to complain about what recipients do with the money than employers do about their employees. Also, this becomes a problem in the case of UBI when everyone is getting the handout. >If you want a blank check that's fine, but you have to be willing to let people starve as a consequence to their actions, with 0 exceptions (from the government) to make it work. People already starve as a consequence to their actions, sometimes because the restrictions imposed on welfare programs by society make it infeasible for people in need to actually participate in those programs, other times because of bad decisions. So yeah, I would prefer a blank check, no strings attached, and no moralizing from the crowd that thinks poverty is sin and moral weakness, and that the poor need to be taught a hard lesson before being granted the privilege of a meal.

mrfusion 7y ago

I feel like this is a bit of a straw man argument. We already have laws and safeguards for irresponsible parents.

tomschlick 7y ago
The CPS system already can't keep up with the amount of cases they have. I don't think adding more will help.

throwaway_law 7y ago

Its funny how the anti-UBI people always couch their arguments against UBI as in the best interest of irresponsible poor single mothers...as if providing a single mother of 4 with a basic income is in her own worst interest and will lead to irresponsible spending. Let me ask you: what do you do now when a mother of 4 doesn't qualify for SNAP or housing assistance, and her 1,2 or 3 jobs isn't enough to cover rent or put food on the table? What do you do now when a SNAP recipient sells their food card and spends the cash? My general experience is anti-UBI proponents don't even know about these issues, and if they do they both don't give a shit and have no more answers than a pro-UBI person. At the end of the day the current model is failing, I for one would much rather see all the tax breaks offered to the rich be rolled back, including estate taxes and capital gains...because as of now all that was premised on "trickle down economics" or maybe better phrased as poor people can eat the crumbs of the rich, and so far the crumbs haven't made their way down and to date that what the poor have been told..."tough".

tomschlick 7y ago
> Its funny how the anti-UBI people always couch their arguments against UBI as in the best interest of irresponsible poor single mothers That's done because those same cases will be used by legislators to justify reinstating these programs after UBI kills them. When they need to drum up public support they always tug at the heartstrings. > what do you do now when a mother of 4 doesn't qualify for SNAP or housing assistance First, I highly doubt a mother of 4 wouldn't qualify for any of those things (net income would be $3,188/mo with 5 members). Second, you seem to think removing SNAP, housing credits, and others and replacing it with $1k/mo would work. I'd argue most of those benefits are worth way more in many cases. In Yang's proposal he would give people the option to choose, which I don't think be adopted very well except for those of us who are already doing just fine and would take the extra money to save/invest. > I for one would much rather see all the tax breaks offered to the rich be rolled back, including estate taxes and capital gains. The top 10% already pays 70.6% of US taxes and the top 1% pays 39% alone. In comparison the bottom 50% pay around 2.8%. What is the magical number that is enough? And when does it become not worth it anymore for those people to reinvest? IMO, the government should never be taking more then 50% of someone's income.