3 ms·

Okay, but we're talking about UBI, and in UBI systems, there aren't any people that are just barely over the threshold. I don't really see folks resenting welf

Okay, but we're talking about UBI, and in UBI systems, there aren't any people that are just barely over the threshold. I don't really see folks resenting welfare. I see a whole lot of folks who have probably never experienced welfare, though, and who are ready to judge those who do receive it. I don't consider this a reasonable line of thought, though, but rather an indicator of bigotry and poor empathy.

aeternum 7y ago
The rich have no reason to resent the system, they've done quite well through it, and the vast majority will treat any new tax as simply a cost to minimize. From a game-theory POV, they act predictably. In contrast, low-income locales often do not act logically: https://thefederalist.com/2015/12/01/why-poor-locales-vote-for-people-who-promise-to-slash-welfare/ https://thefederalist.com/2015/12/01/why-poor-locales-vote-f... The working poor resent the non-working poor for being lazy and freeloading. As you mentioned, bigotry also plays a role in this. Both groups often resent the government for giving them just enough to subsist but not enough to lift their communities out of poverty. I don't see UBI as changing any of that. Eliminating the threshold is good, but it won't address this underlying resentment.
- lidHanteyk 7y ago
  Politely, I don't think that you're actually talking to anybody in "the [non-]working poor". The article you linked commits a dire mistake: They claim that a government that took care of its lazy and poor would encourage the poor to be lazier and the lazy to be poorer, but when has there ever been such a government that actually does care for its lazy and poor? Their claim is without evidence and based upon a style of governance that hasn't yet been tried. In other words, their claim is anti-inductive and generates a self-fulfilling prophecy. Your last two paragraphs are in conflict. UBI would lift people out of poverty in ways that existing welfare programs don't, and it's via the same effect I pointed out before: UBI's effects taper off slowly as people improve their situations, rather than producing more all-or-nothing thresholds which trap people. The bigotry that I am complaining about is the bigotry that you exhibit: That of putting words and actions in the mouths of the poor. I wonder whether you have ever lived below the poverty line.
  - aeternum 7y ago
    Interesting points, thanks for the response. I haven't had the experience of living below the poverty line.

aeternum 7y ago

The rich have no reason to resent the system, they've done quite well through it, and the vast majority will treat any new tax as simply a cost to minimize. From a game-theory POV, they act predictably. In contrast, low-income locales often do not act logically: https://thefederalist.com/2015/12/01/why-poor-locales-vote-for-people-who-promise-to-slash-welfare/ https://thefederalist.com/2015/12/01/why-poor-locales-vote-f... The working poor resent the non-working poor for being lazy and freeloading. As you mentioned, bigotry also plays a role in this. Both groups often resent the government for giving them just enough to subsist but not enough to lift their communities out of poverty. I don't see UBI as changing any of that. Eliminating the threshold is good, but it won't address this underlying resentment.

lidHanteyk 7y ago
Politely, I don't think that you're actually talking to anybody in "the [non-]working poor". The article you linked commits a dire mistake: They claim that a government that took care of its lazy and poor would encourage the poor to be lazier and the lazy to be poorer, but when has there ever been such a government that actually does care for its lazy and poor? Their claim is without evidence and based upon a style of governance that hasn't yet been tried. In other words, their claim is anti-inductive and generates a self-fulfilling prophecy. Your last two paragraphs are in conflict. UBI would lift people out of poverty in ways that existing welfare programs don't, and it's via the same effect I pointed out before: UBI's effects taper off slowly as people improve their situations, rather than producing more all-or-nothing thresholds which trap people. The bigotry that I am complaining about is the bigotry that you exhibit: That of putting words and actions in the mouths of the poor. I wonder whether you have ever lived below the poverty line.
- aeternum 7y ago
  Interesting points, thanks for the response. I haven't had the experience of living below the poverty line.