5 ms·

What ever happened to d) this is not acceptable, and something should be done about it by individuals directly? Why do we need to abdicate responsibility for ou

by kian 7y ago

What ever happened to d) this is not acceptable, and something should be done about it by individuals directly? Why do we need to abdicate responsibility for our local problems to a larger authority? Mutual Aid Societies and religions used to fill this gap - perhaps we can jointly invent a new modern substitute.

aqi 7y ago
The problems are not fundamentally of local scope. Consider for example the coal mining towns that have been left in a state of ruin by the shift away from coal. There is no local prosperity to fund local aid there.
- kian 7y ago
  Let's use your coal mining example - Gilette, Wyoming recently had two mines close. There are 30,500 residents in that town, and 600 were left without a job. (Compare this to the 153 mining jobs lost across the entire state the year before). If every single individual there needed ten thousand dollars in temporary aid to help them relocate, retrain, or just weather out the year - that's 6 million dollars. So if six million people aggregated a dollar apiece, or six hundred thousand (roughly the population of Wyoming) aggregate ten dollars apiece, then problem resolved. Being that this is too difficult a logistical problem, we instead propose as a solution raising many times that amount of money in campaign donations, lobbying, and volunteer hours to convince a significantly larger group of (the exact same) people (who we don't think will give a dollar or ten to the same cause) to spend at least that much in gas and time to get up and go vote for specific or general measures to care for these people instead. Do you see the issues with this logic?
sullyj3 7y ago
It's debatable whether the amount you could get by taxation would be enough. Why would you expect people to be generous enough voluntarily to solve the problem?
Beached 7y ago
We already have moved these local problems to a larger authority. The modern wellfare programs are just that. UBI proposes to simplify that mess with a single more efficient way. UBI isnt introducing a new form of wellfare, but rather replacing the current ones. Also very interested in proposals on joint ventures between the church and state to fill the gaps, as UBI will no question still have gaps. But overall UBI is simply replace a slow (testing and reuping, lots of minute conditions), unreliable (delays, not gaurenteed to be there forever), innefficient(high administation overhead, lots of monmey diverted to distrobution and testing, rather than the end individuals) wellfare program(s) with a fast (universal, so no testing), reliable (gaurenteed for everyone, so no thinking it will go away if you get a job or if you run out of balance) and efficient(little admin overhead, higher % of cash going to individuals) wellfare program. Many UBI schemes propose that local institutions like states and/or cities also impliment a UBI tax to suppliment the federal. so still a local issue and local solution too.

by kian 7y ago

aqi 7y ago

The problems are not fundamentally of local scope. Consider for example the coal mining towns that have been left in a state of ruin by the shift away from coal. There is no local prosperity to fund local aid there.

kian 7y ago
Let's use your coal mining example - Gilette, Wyoming recently had two mines close. There are 30,500 residents in that town, and 600 were left without a job. (Compare this to the 153 mining jobs lost across the entire state the year before). If every single individual there needed ten thousand dollars in temporary aid to help them relocate, retrain, or just weather out the year - that's 6 million dollars. So if six million people aggregated a dollar apiece, or six hundred thousand (roughly the population of Wyoming) aggregate ten dollars apiece, then problem resolved. Being that this is too difficult a logistical problem, we instead propose as a solution raising many times that amount of money in campaign donations, lobbying, and volunteer hours to convince a significantly larger group of (the exact same) people (who we don't think will give a dollar or ten to the same cause) to spend at least that much in gas and time to get up and go vote for specific or general measures to care for these people instead. Do you see the issues with this logic?

sullyj3 7y ago

It's debatable whether the amount you could get by taxation would be enough. Why would you expect people to be generous enough voluntarily to solve the problem?

Beached 7y ago

We already have moved these local problems to a larger authority. The modern wellfare programs are just that. UBI proposes to simplify that mess with a single more efficient way. UBI isnt introducing a new form of wellfare, but rather replacing the current ones. Also very interested in proposals on joint ventures between the church and state to fill the gaps, as UBI will no question still have gaps. But overall UBI is simply replace a slow (testing and reuping, lots of minute conditions), unreliable (delays, not gaurenteed to be there forever), innefficient(high administation overhead, lots of monmey diverted to distrobution and testing, rather than the end individuals) wellfare program(s) with a fast (universal, so no testing), reliable (gaurenteed for everyone, so no thinking it will go away if you get a job or if you run out of balance) and efficient(little admin overhead, higher % of cash going to individuals) wellfare program. Many UBI schemes propose that local institutions like states and/or cities also impliment a UBI tax to suppliment the federal. so still a local issue and local solution too.