4 ms·

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

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.
- tomschlick 7y ago
  > Welfare isn't people asking for a handout from society, it's a government program paid for with tax dollars. That's the definition of a handout. The government is the people, and giving someone money for nothing in return is a handout. > but it no more has the right to complain about what recipients do with the money than employers do about their employees. That's not comparable at all. With employers there is an exchange of services for money. With welfare there is no exchange. It's meant to help people on hard times, not be a long term income source. > People already starve as a consequence to their actions And I'm arguing the rate would be higher with UBI. > sometimes because the restrictions imposed on welfare programs by society make it infeasible for people in need to actually participate in those programs Which is obviously bad, but those restrictions are because of previous rampant abuse of the system. Without them, the system would likely no longer exist. > 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. Yeah I never said that at all. I'm all in favor of helping people for a limited period when they are down, but the system is filled with abuse.

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.

tomschlick 7y ago
> Welfare isn't people asking for a handout from society, it's a government program paid for with tax dollars. That's the definition of a handout. The government is the people, and giving someone money for nothing in return is a handout. > but it no more has the right to complain about what recipients do with the money than employers do about their employees. That's not comparable at all. With employers there is an exchange of services for money. With welfare there is no exchange. It's meant to help people on hard times, not be a long term income source. > People already starve as a consequence to their actions And I'm arguing the rate would be higher with UBI. > sometimes because the restrictions imposed on welfare programs by society make it infeasible for people in need to actually participate in those programs Which is obviously bad, but those restrictions are because of previous rampant abuse of the system. Without them, the system would likely no longer exist. > 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. Yeah I never said that at all. I'm all in favor of helping people for a limited period when they are down, but the system is filled with abuse.