5 ms·

> Sounds like a success to me. I like the concept too, but we have to be careful what we wish for. If, somehow, UBI becomes real there will be a huge push fro

> Sounds like a success to me. I like the concept too, but we have to be careful what we wish for. If, somehow, UBI becomes real there will be a huge push from the libertarians and far-right to dismantle whatever is left of the social safety net. They actually would love the idea of replacing medicare, social security and other programs with a quick 1000/month that would enable even more shrinking of government.

sjwright 7y ago
Medicare isn’t going anywhere. Once people get the taste for single payer healthcare, they don't give it up. Social security should be replaced with privately held accounts, just like superannuation in Australia. But in the transition people would need to be paid out their entitlement. So no problem there. But if UBI replaced all normal welfare (excluding disability etc) is that such a bad thing? As long as the UBI is high enough and indexed to cost of living, welfare that’s broadly targeted at the poor should be unnecessary. Not just unnecessary, it tends to have the effect of making poverty stickier. Any time benefits are inversely tied to how well you're doing, you reduce the incentive to do better.
- mikemotherwell 7y ago
  > But if UBI replaced all normal welfare (excluding disability etc) is that such a bad thing? Part of the problem is that some welfare is not about the money, but the support. UBI is less likely to help someone with mental issues than someone who hates working at 7/11 while studying. Generalised, UBI likely helps those who have an impermanent problem over those that have longer term issues. Society likely would still need welfare services for those people who struggle with the multiple travails of existence. Personally, I'm less interested in UBI in the first world, where welfare is pretty good already and the negative affects are unknown and complicated. I'm more interested in what affect it would have on the third world, where the downsides - disincentives to work etc - seem far less of an issue. https://www.givedirectly.org/ubi-study/ https://www.givedirectly.org/ubi-study/ is a good example.
  - ghostpepper 7y ago
    I'm not familiar with the US system - does the term "welfare" refer to more than just monetary assistance? I would assume social programs, mental health support, addictions support, job training etc. would still be around with a UBI.
    - mikemotherwell 7y ago
      I'm not American, so same situation, but welfare as a cost to government I am pretty sure includes all spending, not just that which goes to the final recipient. https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CRS%20Report%20-%20Welfare%20Spending%20The%20Largest%20Item%20In%20The%20Federal%20Budget.pdf https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CRS%20Report%20-... is the best I could find. I'm also pretty sure that is the case in almost all countries, where welfare is all money spent on, well, looking after people in some way?
bavell 7y ago
I mean, part of the allure of UBI to me is that it is a social safety net except it benefits everyone. Because it's universal and not means-tested, it removes the stigma of being 'on welfare' which IMO is incredibly discouraging and makes it harder to rise out of your unfortunate situation. So yes, I would love if UBI replaced some programs while augments others. At the end of the day it's the most direct and effective way of combating poverty and goes a long way towards closing the wealth gap. Especially when we can divert those funds from corporations into the hands of the people. I do generally favor shrinking the government but not at the expense of the people's safety, liberty or well-being.
- blackflame7000 7y ago
  > At the end of the day it's the most direct and effective way of combating poverty and goes a long way towards closing the wealth gap. Where do you think all this Income is going to come from? The middle class will shoulder the bulk of it which will widen the wealth gap. You will end up with 1k in UBI and 1500 in taxes to pay for it.
  - godelski 7y ago
    Under Yang's plan even if you made $100k/yr (single person household) you'd get an increase[0]. You'd be having to make roughly $140k+/yr to see a decrease in total income (140k results in -$66/yr). (If you were the norm of 2 adults and 2 children your household income would need to be north of $315k/yr to "shoulder" his UBI) So I'm not sure why you think the middle class will shoulder the bulk of the cost. Do you think $150k/yr earners ($300k/yr families) are middle class? The median household income int he US (2018) was $62k/yr[1] [0] https://ubicalculator.com/ https://ubicalculator.com/ [1] https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2019/acs/acsbr18-01.pdf https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publicatio...
    - lliamander 7y ago
      Yang's plan also involves one of the highest deficit spending proposals of any of the UBI plans listed on that calculator. It's all very well and good to say "look, virtually everyone would see a net income increase!" until you realize that's only possible by literally just printing money. The costs of such high deficit spending are pretty certain, but the benefits meant to offset those costs are only speculative (and highly speculative, at that).
hitpointdrew 7y ago
> enable even more shrinking of government. Nothing wrong with that. The government is severely bloated. Also nothing wrong with reducing or replacing horrid, administratively wasteful, degrading, stigmatized, means-tested social safety nets with UBI.
- r-w 7y ago
  I’m confused. Is “means-tested” supposed to be a degrading adjective? Because I think the fact our existing social safety nets are “means-tested” is exactly why people have doubts about UBI.
  - hitpointdrew 7y ago
    > Is “means-tested” supposed to be a degrading adjective? Yes. People who are on means-tested social safety nets are subject to these test which often make you feel degraded. They often make people fear they will lose their benefit. And in many cases they encourage people not to improve their lives (e.g. I better not take that part-time job, because then I will lose unemployment benefits.) It also creates an incentive to falsify information so that you can continue to receive said benefit. UBI solves all that because it isn't means-tested, you just get it no matter what (Oh you improved your situation? You got a job, got healthy, etc. That's great! You will continue to get UBI.)
godelski 7y ago
This is why Yang wanted to make it a choice. The average welfare recipient is getting less than $1k/mo in help and are limited in how they can use it (food stamps can't buy the car repair you need to keep your job). But I do think that is is an overstated concern __because__ most welfare recipients are already receiving less assistance. Btw, there's capitalist oriented arguments for single payer options that libertarians are in favor of (tldr: health care operates under a network effect and single payer can minimize individual and public costs).
whiddershins 7y ago
You are writing as if shrinking the government is a priori bad. Is that your stance? Your stance is coming across like “more government is intrinsically better” Is that what you are hoping I take from reading what you wrote?

sjwright 7y ago

Medicare isn’t going anywhere. Once people get the taste for single payer healthcare, they don't give it up. Social security should be replaced with privately held accounts, just like superannuation in Australia. But in the transition people would need to be paid out their entitlement. So no problem there. But if UBI replaced all normal welfare (excluding disability etc) is that such a bad thing? As long as the UBI is high enough and indexed to cost of living, welfare that’s broadly targeted at the poor should be unnecessary. Not just unnecessary, it tends to have the effect of making poverty stickier. Any time benefits are inversely tied to how well you're doing, you reduce the incentive to do better.

mikemotherwell 7y ago
> But if UBI replaced all normal welfare (excluding disability etc) is that such a bad thing? Part of the problem is that some welfare is not about the money, but the support. UBI is less likely to help someone with mental issues than someone who hates working at 7/11 while studying. Generalised, UBI likely helps those who have an impermanent problem over those that have longer term issues. Society likely would still need welfare services for those people who struggle with the multiple travails of existence. Personally, I'm less interested in UBI in the first world, where welfare is pretty good already and the negative affects are unknown and complicated. I'm more interested in what affect it would have on the third world, where the downsides - disincentives to work etc - seem far less of an issue. https://www.givedirectly.org/ubi-study/ https://www.givedirectly.org/ubi-study/ is a good example.
- ghostpepper 7y ago
  I'm not familiar with the US system - does the term "welfare" refer to more than just monetary assistance? I would assume social programs, mental health support, addictions support, job training etc. would still be around with a UBI.
  - mikemotherwell 7y ago
    I'm not American, so same situation, but welfare as a cost to government I am pretty sure includes all spending, not just that which goes to the final recipient. https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CRS%20Report%20-%20Welfare%20Spending%20The%20Largest%20Item%20In%20The%20Federal%20Budget.pdf https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CRS%20Report%20-... is the best I could find. I'm also pretty sure that is the case in almost all countries, where welfare is all money spent on, well, looking after people in some way?

bavell 7y ago

I mean, part of the allure of UBI to me is that it is a social safety net except it benefits everyone. Because it's universal and not means-tested, it removes the stigma of being 'on welfare' which IMO is incredibly discouraging and makes it harder to rise out of your unfortunate situation. So yes, I would love if UBI replaced some programs while augments others. At the end of the day it's the most direct and effective way of combating poverty and goes a long way towards closing the wealth gap. Especially when we can divert those funds from corporations into the hands of the people. I do generally favor shrinking the government but not at the expense of the people's safety, liberty or well-being.

blackflame7000 7y ago
> At the end of the day it's the most direct and effective way of combating poverty and goes a long way towards closing the wealth gap. Where do you think all this Income is going to come from? The middle class will shoulder the bulk of it which will widen the wealth gap. You will end up with 1k in UBI and 1500 in taxes to pay for it.
- godelski 7y ago
  Under Yang's plan even if you made $100k/yr (single person household) you'd get an increase[0]. You'd be having to make roughly $140k+/yr to see a decrease in total income (140k results in -$66/yr). (If you were the norm of 2 adults and 2 children your household income would need to be north of $315k/yr to "shoulder" his UBI) So I'm not sure why you think the middle class will shoulder the bulk of the cost. Do you think $150k/yr earners ($300k/yr families) are middle class? The median household income int he US (2018) was $62k/yr[1] [0] https://ubicalculator.com/ https://ubicalculator.com/ [1] https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2019/acs/acsbr18-01.pdf https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publicatio...
  - lliamander 7y ago
    Yang's plan also involves one of the highest deficit spending proposals of any of the UBI plans listed on that calculator. It's all very well and good to say "look, virtually everyone would see a net income increase!" until you realize that's only possible by literally just printing money. The costs of such high deficit spending are pretty certain, but the benefits meant to offset those costs are only speculative (and highly speculative, at that).

hitpointdrew 7y ago

> enable even more shrinking of government. Nothing wrong with that. The government is severely bloated. Also nothing wrong with reducing or replacing horrid, administratively wasteful, degrading, stigmatized, means-tested social safety nets with UBI.

r-w 7y ago
I’m confused. Is “means-tested” supposed to be a degrading adjective? Because I think the fact our existing social safety nets are “means-tested” is exactly why people have doubts about UBI.
- hitpointdrew 7y ago
  > Is “means-tested” supposed to be a degrading adjective? Yes. People who are on means-tested social safety nets are subject to these test which often make you feel degraded. They often make people fear they will lose their benefit. And in many cases they encourage people not to improve their lives (e.g. I better not take that part-time job, because then I will lose unemployment benefits.) It also creates an incentive to falsify information so that you can continue to receive said benefit. UBI solves all that because it isn't means-tested, you just get it no matter what (Oh you improved your situation? You got a job, got healthy, etc. That's great! You will continue to get UBI.)

godelski 7y ago

This is why Yang wanted to make it a choice. The average welfare recipient is getting less than $1k/mo in help and are limited in how they can use it (food stamps can't buy the car repair you need to keep your job). But I do think that is is an overstated concern __because__ most welfare recipients are already receiving less assistance. Btw, there's capitalist oriented arguments for single payer options that libertarians are in favor of (tldr: health care operates under a network effect and single payer can minimize individual and public costs).

whiddershins 7y ago

You are writing as if shrinking the government is a priori bad. Is that your stance? Your stance is coming across like “more government is intrinsically better” Is that what you are hoping I take from reading what you wrote?