3 ms·

In a world where there were no existing welfare programs, I can see UBI discouraging work and increasing bureaucracy. But almost every UBI/Negative income tax

In a world where there were no existing welfare programs, I can see UBI discouraging work and increasing bureaucracy. But almost every UBI/Negative income tax proposal that's serious wants to _replace_ existing disparate welfare programs with UBI. The advantages of doing that replacement would be: 1. lower bureaucracy since we would just hand over checks to folks rather than doing all kinds of checks to see if they are eligible 2. every person would be treated the same way, we would get rid of welfare cliffs in benefits

rinchik 7y ago
You are stating a very decent, theoretical proposition I can agree with. The problem is that this version/proposition works only in "isolated system" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolated_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolated_system) i.e. "ideal theoretical environment", green field project, if you will. Unfortunately, it can not happen in the real-world scenario. Existing welfare programs (80% of which, strictly in my personal opinion, is a politicized misgovernance), and dependency those have promoted are already deeply rooted in the brains of our population. 1000s of bureaucrats are employed with these programs that will not step down, people's minds and dynamics is a whole differen variable: In no way single Jessy with 5 children would agree to the same benefit as Susanne with only 2. Also when Government was any good at anything? What we will end up with is a whole new governmental branch sucking on taxes with a set of newly emerged corrupted bureaucrats.
- letsgoyeti 7y ago
  Well, I'll just say you have to separate the analysis of the policy proposal, from what kind of actual policy we would end up with given political constraints. A similar critique of whether it's politically feasible could be made of any other proposal, including, say, a libertarian one where every existing welfare program is gutted. > Also when Government was any good at anything? Depends on who you ask, I guess.
pkaye 7y ago
> But almost every UBI/Negative income tax proposal that's serious wants to _replace_ existing disparate welfare programs with UBI. Would this replace social security?

rinchik 7y ago

You are stating a very decent, theoretical proposition I can agree with. The problem is that this version/proposition works only in "isolated system" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolated_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolated_system) i.e. "ideal theoretical environment", green field project, if you will. Unfortunately, it can not happen in the real-world scenario. Existing welfare programs (80% of which, strictly in my personal opinion, is a politicized misgovernance), and dependency those have promoted are already deeply rooted in the brains of our population. 1000s of bureaucrats are employed with these programs that will not step down, people's minds and dynamics is a whole differen variable: In no way single Jessy with 5 children would agree to the same benefit as Susanne with only 2. Also when Government was any good at anything? What we will end up with is a whole new governmental branch sucking on taxes with a set of newly emerged corrupted bureaucrats.

letsgoyeti 7y ago
Well, I'll just say you have to separate the analysis of the policy proposal, from what kind of actual policy we would end up with given political constraints. A similar critique of whether it's politically feasible could be made of any other proposal, including, say, a libertarian one where every existing welfare program is gutted. > Also when Government was any good at anything? Depends on who you ask, I guess.

pkaye 7y ago

> But almost every UBI/Negative income tax proposal that's serious wants to _replace_ existing disparate welfare programs with UBI. Would this replace social security?