7 ms·

Budgetwise this is not feasible without raising taxes across the board. We already have safety nets in place to aid people. EBT, WIC, Medi-Cal, Lifeline phones

Budgetwise this is not feasible without raising taxes across the board. We already have safety nets in place to aid people. EBT, WIC, Medi-Cal, Lifeline phones, discounted/free home internet. I’m not sure what giving money to someone does. I would use it buy crap that doesn’t make me better off which is supposed to be the point of the program. In my 20s and 30s, being wise with money was not my strong point. Giving me free cash every month wouldn’t help me but aid me. I probably would buy cigarettes, alcohol, and gas. How does that help me better in life?

tenuousemphasis 6y ago
We spend as much on our military as the next ten largest militaries combined (all our allies), I think we can afford this.
- swarnie_ 6y ago
  If you want to save money on your military budget i can find a few hundred overseas bases i could recommend for closure.
- alextheparrot 6y ago
  Not to be supportive of American militarism, but calling China or Russia (Number 2 and 4 in spending) American allies seems to be actively misleading.
chrisgd 6y ago
This is such a garbage response filled with stereotypes and misinformation. I am on employment right now and it is $275 a week, our safety nets are garbage. The assumption that people below the poverty line would spend it on alcohol and drugs has been proven wrong, even in this article. We can afford whatever we want, we choose to only bring up cost and debt when it involves something we dislike. Helping people = what about debt? Military budget = let’s do it. Studies have proven that giving poor people money flows back into the economy and multiplies more than elsewhere tax cuts for the rich. Our taxes are higher than socialist European countries when factoring in what they get for their money.
montagg 6y ago
The thesis behind these programs is explicitly that the government shouldn’t waste timing being paternalistic about the recipient’s spending, like existing programs are. It only matters if in aggregate people’s lives are improved, not whether they are “spending wisely” according to someone’s ideal. There may be other reasons why programs like this aren’t good, like financial feasibility or positive outcomes aren’t sustained when it’s broadly applied, but “I don’t trust someone to spend it well,” which is just a stand in for “how I would spend it,” needs to go away in favor of outcome-based evaluation.
- fiftyfifty 6y ago
  The question I've always wondered about UBI type programs (and I've been a fan) is what happens when people don't spend the money wisely? Take homelessness for example, what happens when you give homeless people $1,000/month and they spend it on drugs and are still homeless and hungry? In the end it seems like we will be left paying for UBI and social programs like public housing, food stamps and drug addiction programs. UBI will simply not be a replacement for most social programs as it is often advertised, which in my mind means we probably can't afford it.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  >The thesis behind these programs is explicitly that the government shouldn’t waste timing being paternalistic about the recipient’s spending, l When government is getting that money by taking it from other people it has responsibility to see that the money is spent in a manner that's beneficial. If that's blackjack and hookers then fine but if it turns out that the money is spend on blackjack and hookers and doing so doesn't benefit society then we can't in good faith keep taking people's money for that use. I'm all for outcome based evaluation, but we need to have the balls to say "ok, well no blackjack and hookers then" if that's what the numbers support.
godtoldmetodoit 6y ago
Of course taxes would need to be raised. In the USA households worth 1 million or more own 79% of all household wealth in the country. The bottom 50% in the USA has approximately 0.025% of all national wealth. Yes 0.025%. This is untenable. Solutions to this need to be implemented, fast. It is a moral imperative. It is a systemic stability imperative. If you were in the bottom 50%, would you prefer navigating a dozen programs to handle food, phones, heating, internet, baby clothes etc. or would you rather just take cash and make those decisions in the market just like everyone else? https://twitter.com/JStein_WaPo/status/1310620150614425602/photo/1 https://twitter.com/JStein_WaPo/status/1310620150614425602/p... https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2020/09/28/millionaires-and-billionaires-own-79-of-all-household-wealth/ https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2020/09/28/millionaires...
- notatoad 6y ago
  > would you prefer navigating a dozen programs to handle food, phones, heating, internet, baby clothes etc. or i would rather just take the money. but are we really suggesting that all social programs should be cut and replaced with cash handouts? what happens when somebody does take that cash, spends it non-essentials, and then can't feed or house themselves or their children? do we just let them starve or freeze to death, because we've already given them cash? i'm not against a basic income, but i think it needs to be secondary to universal basic housing, universal basic nutrition, and universal basic healthcare.
  - 5thaccount 6y ago
    > what happens when somebody does take that cash, spends it non-essentials That's the least worrying aspect of a UBI, IMHO. Charities will always exist to fill some of these gaps, and the extremes are always there. The most worrying aspect is that UBI likely exacerbates inequality, between those who are naturally driven and those who are not. It also likely leads to a recession, and fairly quickly at that. https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2019/basic_income_reduces_employment.html https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2019/basic_income_reduces... has a good summary, but this part is telling: > The net result on labor supply is the following: > - Husbands reduced their labor supply by about 7% in the 3-year treatment group and by 12-13% in the 5 year treatment group. > - Wives reduced their labor supply by about 15% in the 3-year treatment group and by 21-27% in the 5 year treatment group. > - Single mothers reduced their labor supply between 15 and 30%. The effects of a UBI on work likely mean an acceleration of automation. the > 10% drop in hours is likely most pronounced at the bottom, and many companies will replace that with robots, which leads to even less hours and trouble for many people even entering the workforce. A UBI likely benefits people who have a short term problem in service of a long-term goal. Think college student studying law or medicine. I think a UBI is ideal in Kenya, Uganda or the Congo, where many driven, capable people are held back by a system where almost no one succeeds. I think it is less likely to lead to a positive change in the west, and is likely to exacerbate inequality and lead to those who make just UBI, and those who make a lot more.
tantalor 6y ago
> across the board No, just on high-income or high-wealth people.

tenuousemphasis 6y ago

We spend as much on our military as the next ten largest militaries combined (all our allies), I think we can afford this.

swarnie_ 6y ago
If you want to save money on your military budget i can find a few hundred overseas bases i could recommend for closure.
alextheparrot 6y ago
Not to be supportive of American militarism, but calling China or Russia (Number 2 and 4 in spending) American allies seems to be actively misleading.

chrisgd 6y ago

This is such a garbage response filled with stereotypes and misinformation. I am on employment right now and it is $275 a week, our safety nets are garbage. The assumption that people below the poverty line would spend it on alcohol and drugs has been proven wrong, even in this article. We can afford whatever we want, we choose to only bring up cost and debt when it involves something we dislike. Helping people = what about debt? Military budget = let’s do it. Studies have proven that giving poor people money flows back into the economy and multiplies more than elsewhere tax cuts for the rich. Our taxes are higher than socialist European countries when factoring in what they get for their money.

montagg 6y ago

The thesis behind these programs is explicitly that the government shouldn’t waste timing being paternalistic about the recipient’s spending, like existing programs are. It only matters if in aggregate people’s lives are improved, not whether they are “spending wisely” according to someone’s ideal. There may be other reasons why programs like this aren’t good, like financial feasibility or positive outcomes aren’t sustained when it’s broadly applied, but “I don’t trust someone to spend it well,” which is just a stand in for “how I would spend it,” needs to go away in favor of outcome-based evaluation.

fiftyfifty 6y ago
The question I've always wondered about UBI type programs (and I've been a fan) is what happens when people don't spend the money wisely? Take homelessness for example, what happens when you give homeless people $1,000/month and they spend it on drugs and are still homeless and hungry? In the end it seems like we will be left paying for UBI and social programs like public housing, food stamps and drug addiction programs. UBI will simply not be a replacement for most social programs as it is often advertised, which in my mind means we probably can't afford it.
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
>The thesis behind these programs is explicitly that the government shouldn’t waste timing being paternalistic about the recipient’s spending, l When government is getting that money by taking it from other people it has responsibility to see that the money is spent in a manner that's beneficial. If that's blackjack and hookers then fine but if it turns out that the money is spend on blackjack and hookers and doing so doesn't benefit society then we can't in good faith keep taking people's money for that use. I'm all for outcome based evaluation, but we need to have the balls to say "ok, well no blackjack and hookers then" if that's what the numbers support.

godtoldmetodoit 6y ago

Of course taxes would need to be raised. In the USA households worth 1 million or more own 79% of all household wealth in the country. The bottom 50% in the USA has approximately 0.025% of all national wealth. Yes 0.025%. This is untenable. Solutions to this need to be implemented, fast. It is a moral imperative. It is a systemic stability imperative. If you were in the bottom 50%, would you prefer navigating a dozen programs to handle food, phones, heating, internet, baby clothes etc. or would you rather just take cash and make those decisions in the market just like everyone else? https://twitter.com/JStein_WaPo/status/1310620150614425602/photo/1 https://twitter.com/JStein_WaPo/status/1310620150614425602/p... https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2020/09/28/millionaires-and-billionaires-own-79-of-all-household-wealth/ https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2020/09/28/millionaires...

notatoad 6y ago
> would you prefer navigating a dozen programs to handle food, phones, heating, internet, baby clothes etc. or i would rather just take the money. but are we really suggesting that all social programs should be cut and replaced with cash handouts? what happens when somebody does take that cash, spends it non-essentials, and then can't feed or house themselves or their children? do we just let them starve or freeze to death, because we've already given them cash? i'm not against a basic income, but i think it needs to be secondary to universal basic housing, universal basic nutrition, and universal basic healthcare.
- 5thaccount 6y ago
  > what happens when somebody does take that cash, spends it non-essentials That's the least worrying aspect of a UBI, IMHO. Charities will always exist to fill some of these gaps, and the extremes are always there. The most worrying aspect is that UBI likely exacerbates inequality, between those who are naturally driven and those who are not. It also likely leads to a recession, and fairly quickly at that. https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2019/basic_income_reduces_employment.html https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2019/basic_income_reduces... has a good summary, but this part is telling: > The net result on labor supply is the following: > - Husbands reduced their labor supply by about 7% in the 3-year treatment group and by 12-13% in the 5 year treatment group. > - Wives reduced their labor supply by about 15% in the 3-year treatment group and by 21-27% in the 5 year treatment group. > - Single mothers reduced their labor supply between 15 and 30%. The effects of a UBI on work likely mean an acceleration of automation. the > 10% drop in hours is likely most pronounced at the bottom, and many companies will replace that with robots, which leads to even less hours and trouble for many people even entering the workforce. A UBI likely benefits people who have a short term problem in service of a long-term goal. Think college student studying law or medicine. I think a UBI is ideal in Kenya, Uganda or the Congo, where many driven, capable people are held back by a system where almost no one succeeds. I think it is less likely to lead to a positive change in the west, and is likely to exacerbate inequality and lead to those who make just UBI, and those who make a lot more.

tantalor 6y ago

> across the board No, just on high-income or high-wealth people.