6 ms·

The aim of UBI is not to make people better off, but to ensure that everyone has enough money to live on. It's intended to replace means-tested social securit

The aim of UBI is not to make people better off, but to ensure that everyone has enough money to live on. It's intended to replace means-tested social security. With UBI, nobody falls through the safety net and ends up with nothing to live on; you don't need an army of people assessing claimants' financial circumstances; and when someone finds a low-paid or part-time job they still keep their UBI, so there's no disincentive to work. If you argue it's unfair that people pay for UBI, how is that different from arguing that it's unfair that people pay for means-tested social security (or poor people's medical bills)?

notahacker 6y ago
> If you argue it's unfair that people pay for UBI, how is that different from arguing that it's unfair that people pay for means-tested social security (or poor people's medical bills)? There's a big difference between a welfare state designed as a form of social insurance to protect people from adverse circumstances and old age, and one designed on the assumption that those who want to work owe those who don't a living, and that the only circumstance that should affect how much people receive is whether they have the right citizenship. Aside from the fundamental ethical rationale changing from contribution based social insurance to citizenship based entitlement, UBI would also represent a much larger bill, and a lower payout to the neediest.
- JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  Lots of loaded words in there, and not really fairly. Nobody 'owes' anybody a living. The situation is, we can give most folks a living, without everyone working. And those that continue to work, of course are better off because they earn money for that. No unfairness at all. I think its the old Protestant work ethic, this attitude of "folks not working are immoral". We have to get past this, to make UBI a thing.
  - notahacker 6y ago
    > Nobody 'owes' anybody a living The literal purpose of UBI is to ensure that taxpayers do owe each citizen a fixed amount set at an average living. Making that a social obligation based on birthright rather than a potential future entitlement based on need is how it's different from social insurance schemes. The assumption if you're able to work and not interested in looking for it you probably don't need the money as much as other people certainly isn't what's wrong with current welfare states. You don't have to believe that "folks not working are immoral" to believe that helping those fortunate enough to be able to choose not to work at the expense of those that aren't [whether by reduced benefits or higher taxes] isn't what welfare states were for.
    - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
      Yeah no. Its a new system of course, not the same as the one we are in. To work indefinitely, and not just through a tax or currency scheme, the results of automation would have to be reconsidered. Now if somebody builds a factory, the factory belongs to them but also the output of the factory forever belongs to them. This creates a huge imbalance, with some folks 'earning' hundreds of millions a year forever, for no real effort beyond the initial investment. If something like VAT were used, it would change things. Without dis-incentivizing real work. This system is already in use around the world, just not in America at the moment.
      - notahacker 6y ago
        I live in a post-industrial, omnipresent-VAT European world, and it doesn't make UBI any more affordable in the foreseeable future. I think we can consider the results of just-around-the-corner-for-200-years automation-induced mass unemployment if and when it actually happens, although I'm still unconvinced that delinking benefit income from desire to actually find work or any other kind of demonstrable need would be the best solution.
    - DonaldFisk 6y ago
      Under UBI, how many people would willingly give up their jobs just to live on a subsistence level income, and for no other reason (e.g. study or childcare)? Under means-tested benefits, how many people without work are discouraged from taking low-paid or part-time work because their social security payments are clawed back, resulting in no financial gain for them?
roenxi 6y ago
> The aim of UBI is not to make people better off, but to ensure that everyone has enough money to live on. I think there is an entirely reasonable argument that having enough money to live on (guaranteed) would make people better off. If a policy isn't being done to make people better off, why do it? The easiest way to maintain the status quo is to do nothing - rather than finding innovative ways to maintain stasis but with new laws. > If you argue it's unfair that people pay for UBI, how is that different from arguing that it's unfair that people pay for means-tested social security (or poor people's medical bills)? Yep. The argument against most social spending boils down to the same two things. Sometimes other arguments do crop up (eg, some truly foolish policies incentivise destructive behaviour).

notahacker 6y ago

> If you argue it's unfair that people pay for UBI, how is that different from arguing that it's unfair that people pay for means-tested social security (or poor people's medical bills)? There's a big difference between a welfare state designed as a form of social insurance to protect people from adverse circumstances and old age, and one designed on the assumption that those who want to work owe those who don't a living, and that the only circumstance that should affect how much people receive is whether they have the right citizenship. Aside from the fundamental ethical rationale changing from contribution based social insurance to citizenship based entitlement, UBI would also represent a much larger bill, and a lower payout to the neediest.

JoeAltmaier 6y ago
Lots of loaded words in there, and not really fairly. Nobody 'owes' anybody a living. The situation is, we can give most folks a living, without everyone working. And those that continue to work, of course are better off because they earn money for that. No unfairness at all. I think its the old Protestant work ethic, this attitude of "folks not working are immoral". We have to get past this, to make UBI a thing.
- notahacker 6y ago
  > Nobody 'owes' anybody a living The literal purpose of UBI is to ensure that taxpayers do owe each citizen a fixed amount set at an average living. Making that a social obligation based on birthright rather than a potential future entitlement based on need is how it's different from social insurance schemes. The assumption if you're able to work and not interested in looking for it you probably don't need the money as much as other people certainly isn't what's wrong with current welfare states. You don't have to believe that "folks not working are immoral" to believe that helping those fortunate enough to be able to choose not to work at the expense of those that aren't [whether by reduced benefits or higher taxes] isn't what welfare states were for.
  - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
    Yeah no. Its a new system of course, not the same as the one we are in. To work indefinitely, and not just through a tax or currency scheme, the results of automation would have to be reconsidered. Now if somebody builds a factory, the factory belongs to them but also the output of the factory forever belongs to them. This creates a huge imbalance, with some folks 'earning' hundreds of millions a year forever, for no real effort beyond the initial investment. If something like VAT were used, it would change things. Without dis-incentivizing real work. This system is already in use around the world, just not in America at the moment.
    - notahacker 6y ago
      I live in a post-industrial, omnipresent-VAT European world, and it doesn't make UBI any more affordable in the foreseeable future. I think we can consider the results of just-around-the-corner-for-200-years automation-induced mass unemployment if and when it actually happens, although I'm still unconvinced that delinking benefit income from desire to actually find work or any other kind of demonstrable need would be the best solution.
  - DonaldFisk 6y ago
    Under UBI, how many people would willingly give up their jobs just to live on a subsistence level income, and for no other reason (e.g. study or childcare)? Under means-tested benefits, how many people without work are discouraged from taking low-paid or part-time work because their social security payments are clawed back, resulting in no financial gain for them?

roenxi 6y ago

> The aim of UBI is not to make people better off, but to ensure that everyone has enough money to live on. I think there is an entirely reasonable argument that having enough money to live on (guaranteed) would make people better off. If a policy isn't being done to make people better off, why do it? The easiest way to maintain the status quo is to do nothing - rather than finding innovative ways to maintain stasis but with new laws. > If you argue it's unfair that people pay for UBI, how is that different from arguing that it's unfair that people pay for means-tested social security (or poor people's medical bills)? Yep. The argument against most social spending boils down to the same two things. Sometimes other arguments do crop up (eg, some truly foolish policies incentivise destructive behaviour).