4 ms·

> Bernie supporter here AND UBI supporter, (not Yang's version per se though). I support a bigger more expansive UBI that would basically cover all food, housin

> Bernie supporter here AND UBI supporter, (not Yang's version per se though). I support a bigger more expansive UBI that would basically cover all food, housing, and major monthly expenses. I agree that those basics that make up common humanity should be covered. But I differ on how to get there. UBI means writing a check to someone, and letting them spend it how they wish. They can spend it on food and healthcare, their startup, or alcohol and gambling. But if the purpose is to set a minimum level human decency (food, housing, healthcare), then we should provide that level of decency, rather than writing a check and hoping people will use it wisely. If an entrepreneur takes their UBI check and rather than buying healthcare, puts it into a startup that eventually becomes big, that may be a better result for the overall economy, but we've still failed that person in providing a minimum level of humanity. The moral purpose behind UBI is not to just write checks, it's to allow humans to retain their humanity. Providing solid public schools, healthcare, and basic housing better provide that minimum level of dignity than sending a person a check.

gremlinsinc 7y ago
I also come at it from a technical standpoint. It's easier/cheaper to shut down all welfare buildings and government programs and just cut a check. That ends a lot of wasteful spending to pay for the thing. Also housing/food differs dramatically across the country. How do you manage that? Mailing multiple checks? Multiple EBT like cards? I mean it's really difficult to think of a method other than just writing a check that's big enough to cover most.. Who in America would not be better off with a guaranteed $36000/year income? If they have a spouse and two kids they'd make around $50k...and that's BEFORE they take up a full or part-time job.
- Communitivity 7y ago
  I support UBI and social welfare program reform, but the two are separate things. The programs are there for when people need help. The UBI is there to minimize the number of people who need help. All the solutions I see for UBI are short term. What I posted on Twitter was the idea of addressing it in the long term: For each of the 3919528 babies born in the USA in 2019 ((11.979 babies born per 1000 people, in 2019; 327.2 million population), deposit $100k in a lower risk growth mutual fund. , at a cost of $391 billion. Do this for 50 years. When the first cohort of babies turns 50 they should have around $1m available for retirement. So will each year's cohort after them for the next 50 years. Much of that money will be passed on to a new generation, or go back to the government if they die without issue (and that money goes into a mutual fund whose interest goes to help pay for subsequent cohorts). Yes, it won't touch the problem for 50 years (hence the need for social program reform now too), and it requires both political parties to agree to not dismantle it (like Soc Security was tampered with). But if so, the problem is solved after 50 years, for at least 50 years and hopefully longer.

gremlinsinc 7y ago

I also come at it from a technical standpoint. It's easier/cheaper to shut down all welfare buildings and government programs and just cut a check. That ends a lot of wasteful spending to pay for the thing. Also housing/food differs dramatically across the country. How do you manage that? Mailing multiple checks? Multiple EBT like cards? I mean it's really difficult to think of a method other than just writing a check that's big enough to cover most.. Who in America would not be better off with a guaranteed $36000/year income? If they have a spouse and two kids they'd make around $50k...and that's BEFORE they take up a full or part-time job.

Communitivity 7y ago
I support UBI and social welfare program reform, but the two are separate things. The programs are there for when people need help. The UBI is there to minimize the number of people who need help. All the solutions I see for UBI are short term. What I posted on Twitter was the idea of addressing it in the long term: For each of the 3919528 babies born in the USA in 2019 ((11.979 babies born per 1000 people, in 2019; 327.2 million population), deposit $100k in a lower risk growth mutual fund. , at a cost of $391 billion. Do this for 50 years. When the first cohort of babies turns 50 they should have around $1m available for retirement. So will each year's cohort after them for the next 50 years. Much of that money will be passed on to a new generation, or go back to the government if they die without issue (and that money goes into a mutual fund whose interest goes to help pay for subsequent cohorts). Yes, it won't touch the problem for 50 years (hence the need for social program reform now too), and it requires both political parties to agree to not dismantle it (like Soc Security was tampered with). But if so, the problem is solved after 50 years, for at least 50 years and hopefully longer.