5 ms·

> Sounds like it axes Medicare, SS, and a large number of tax deductions… … as well various special-purpose programs including housing benefits, SSI, SNAP, TAN

> Sounds like it axes Medicare, SS, and a large number of tax deductions… … as well various special-purpose programs including housing benefits, SSI, SNAP, TANF, veteran's benefits, WIC, Medicaid, SS Disability, and disaster relief. I'm sure those currently receiving these benefits will be thrilled to find out that they're being replaced by a flat UBI payment of $15k/yr (minus taxes) with no allowance for special circumstances or hardship. > [SS and Medicare removal] would be a massive windfall for most if the money paid-in was returned. Undoubtedly, but what are the odds of that happening?

relaxing 5y ago
It sounds like you’re being sarcastic, but it will be vastly preferable to avoid the bureaucracy that comes with all those programs. Not to mention the cognitive burden that comes from constantly being means tested.
- giantg2 5y ago
  "but it will be vastly preferable" To whom? The government, sure. The individuals using those programs, probably not. Healthcare costs alone would likely wipe that out (for the demographics using Medicare). Rent in many areas would eat more than half.
  - relaxing 5y ago
    Rent is expensive in big cities? Wow, the poor are gonna be so pissed when they find out. /s Affordable housing is a separate issue and point of concern no matter who is paying.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      That's not a separate issue. One of the programs they would cut is housing assistance. So that directly affects it. You could say that housing costs are a larger issue. However that issue is largely a non-issue for the demographic we are talking about currently since they qualify for stuff like HUD assistance (which would be removed under the plan).
      - totony 5y ago
        I think the premisr of the proposition is that UBI makes housing assistances superfluous, since UBI should cover basic needs.
        giantg2 5y ago
        That may be the premise, but as stated earlier in this chain, it appears to be false ($15k won't cover healthcare, housing, etc that would be removed under the proposal).
        relaxing 5y ago
        I don’t understand. You think every homeless family gets a $7000 apartment? Do you have any idea what HUD actually spends on vouchers, section 8, etc?
        nybble41 5y ago
        > Do you have any idea what HUD actually spends on vouchers, section 8, etc? The actual amount varies by region and income, but e.g. the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (which is financed by HUD) says[0]: > For CY2020, HACLA paid more than $582 Million to private Landlords on behalf of more than 44,000 participant families. That works out to an average (mean) of $13.2k per year per family—and they're only covering a portion of the rent. A couple living on UBI and no longer receiving Section 8 vouchers would spend about half of two UBI payments making up for the loss of Section 8, while the other $16.8k/year needs to cover the rest of their rent, food, clothing, transportation, medicine, and any other necessary expenses for both of them. [0] http://home.hacla.org/abouts8 http://home.hacla.org/abouts8
        relaxing 5y ago
        HACLA isn’t solely funded by HUD so the actual figure is less. Spending 50% of household income is fairly cost burdened, but not unworkable. The same problem exists under the current scheme as well. Living in a big city affords more opportunities to earn income. Some would use their initial UBI payments to move to cheaper locales. Grants could help.
- nybble41 5y ago
  Average Medicaid expenditures (per year) for persons with disabilities (age 0-64) was $19.7k in 2016[0]. It's probably higher by now. So by cutting Medicaid and replacing it with a flat $15k/year you're reducing benefits to persons with disabilities, on average, by almost $5k/year. Since that's an average, I'm sure there are some who will see much larger cuts and quite a few who will find themselves unable to afford necessary treatments or other costs relating to their disability. That's just Medicaid; it gets worse when you consider all the other programs being cut. Even allowing for realistic reductions in bureaucratic overhead, you can't just cut narrowly targeted programs and spread the same amount of money evenly across the entire population without significantly reducing the money available, on average, to the original beneficiaries. [0] https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/fact-sheets/medicaid-facts-and-figures https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/fact-sheets/medicaid-facts-and-...
  - relaxing 5y ago
    UBI doesn’t mean every expenditure suddenly becomes out of pocket. The sensible move would be to keep disability, etc. as a form of insurance where costs are spread across the populace.
    - nybble41 5y ago
      > The sensible move would be to keep disability, etc. as a form of insurance where costs are spread across the populace. And now you're back where you started—you haven't eliminated these need-based programs at all, or reduced the bureaucracy. You've just added the UBI as an extra expense.
      - relaxing 5y ago
        It’s not at all or nothing proposition. Your employer probably pays you a salary and offers you disability insurance too.
        giantg2 5y ago
        That's literally what the proposition in the link is - remove these existing programs and tax deductions to pay for the UBI.
- gruez 5y ago
  I'm skeptical you can actually "avoid the bureaucracy" with UBI. At the end of the day there will still be people who need more aid than the standard UBI can provide (eg. people with mental/physical disabilities). We can't realistically let them fend for themselves, so you still need the bureaucracy to manage those people.
  - totony 5y ago
    In an ideal world you would subsidize mental/physical assistance instead of giving them more money. It's both easier to do and fairer to those affected.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      Yeah... letting the companies that provide those services, making a profit from them, determine who qualifies is probably going to rife with fraud and abuse. At best, you end up with inflated costs due to there being little incentivize keeping costs down, like we see with student loans and college.
      - totony 5y ago
        A lot of countries nationalised these services since they're essential. Nothing stops the US from doing the same.
        giantg2 5y ago
        That's not what the proposal is suggesting, and not really part of most UBI proposals.
Msw242 5y ago
The article has a chart. This is a transfer from the very poorest to the middle and upper middle class (how much revenue does a tax on millionaires really accomplish?) I'll take it because it would benefit me, but that doesn't make it great policy. Also most UBI supporters aren't usually on the same side of an issue as AEI.
- totony 5y ago
  The chart shows a slight negative for the very poorest (that are eligible for benefits - it doesn't seem to take into account the people that don't pay taxes, aka the very very poorest, who would presumably not see such a loss). Although this is fixable by taxing more the middle class if that's what we wish to do (aka, not being "budget-neutral")
  - Msw242 5y ago
    "slight negative" is a net loss of what looks like 15k or over 1/3 of the cash value of their current benefits.

relaxing 5y ago

It sounds like you’re being sarcastic, but it will be vastly preferable to avoid the bureaucracy that comes with all those programs. Not to mention the cognitive burden that comes from constantly being means tested.

giantg2 5y ago
"but it will be vastly preferable" To whom? The government, sure. The individuals using those programs, probably not. Healthcare costs alone would likely wipe that out (for the demographics using Medicare). Rent in many areas would eat more than half.
- relaxing 5y ago
  Rent is expensive in big cities? Wow, the poor are gonna be so pissed when they find out. /s Affordable housing is a separate issue and point of concern no matter who is paying.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    That's not a separate issue. One of the programs they would cut is housing assistance. So that directly affects it. You could say that housing costs are a larger issue. However that issue is largely a non-issue for the demographic we are talking about currently since they qualify for stuff like HUD assistance (which would be removed under the plan).
    - totony 5y ago
      I think the premisr of the proposition is that UBI makes housing assistances superfluous, since UBI should cover basic needs.
      - giantg2 5y ago
        That may be the premise, but as stated earlier in this chain, it appears to be false ($15k won't cover healthcare, housing, etc that would be removed under the proposal).
        relaxing 5y ago
        I don’t understand. You think every homeless family gets a $7000 apartment? Do you have any idea what HUD actually spends on vouchers, section 8, etc?
        nybble41 5y ago
        > Do you have any idea what HUD actually spends on vouchers, section 8, etc? The actual amount varies by region and income, but e.g. the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (which is financed by HUD) says[0]: > For CY2020, HACLA paid more than $582 Million to private Landlords on behalf of more than 44,000 participant families. That works out to an average (mean) of $13.2k per year per family—and they're only covering a portion of the rent. A couple living on UBI and no longer receiving Section 8 vouchers would spend about half of two UBI payments making up for the loss of Section 8, while the other $16.8k/year needs to cover the rest of their rent, food, clothing, transportation, medicine, and any other necessary expenses for both of them. [0] http://home.hacla.org/abouts8 http://home.hacla.org/abouts8
        relaxing 5y ago
        HACLA isn’t solely funded by HUD so the actual figure is less. Spending 50% of household income is fairly cost burdened, but not unworkable. The same problem exists under the current scheme as well. Living in a big city affords more opportunities to earn income. Some would use their initial UBI payments to move to cheaper locales. Grants could help.
nybble41 5y ago
Average Medicaid expenditures (per year) for persons with disabilities (age 0-64) was $19.7k in 2016[0]. It's probably higher by now. So by cutting Medicaid and replacing it with a flat $15k/year you're reducing benefits to persons with disabilities, on average, by almost $5k/year. Since that's an average, I'm sure there are some who will see much larger cuts and quite a few who will find themselves unable to afford necessary treatments or other costs relating to their disability. That's just Medicaid; it gets worse when you consider all the other programs being cut. Even allowing for realistic reductions in bureaucratic overhead, you can't just cut narrowly targeted programs and spread the same amount of money evenly across the entire population without significantly reducing the money available, on average, to the original beneficiaries. [0] https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/fact-sheets/medicaid-facts-and-figures https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/fact-sheets/medicaid-facts-and-...
- relaxing 5y ago
  UBI doesn’t mean every expenditure suddenly becomes out of pocket. The sensible move would be to keep disability, etc. as a form of insurance where costs are spread across the populace.
  - nybble41 5y ago
    > The sensible move would be to keep disability, etc. as a form of insurance where costs are spread across the populace. And now you're back where you started—you haven't eliminated these need-based programs at all, or reduced the bureaucracy. You've just added the UBI as an extra expense.
    - relaxing 5y ago
      It’s not at all or nothing proposition. Your employer probably pays you a salary and offers you disability insurance too.
      - giantg2 5y ago
        That's literally what the proposition in the link is - remove these existing programs and tax deductions to pay for the UBI.
gruez 5y ago
I'm skeptical you can actually "avoid the bureaucracy" with UBI. At the end of the day there will still be people who need more aid than the standard UBI can provide (eg. people with mental/physical disabilities). We can't realistically let them fend for themselves, so you still need the bureaucracy to manage those people.
- totony 5y ago
  In an ideal world you would subsidize mental/physical assistance instead of giving them more money. It's both easier to do and fairer to those affected.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    Yeah... letting the companies that provide those services, making a profit from them, determine who qualifies is probably going to rife with fraud and abuse. At best, you end up with inflated costs due to there being little incentivize keeping costs down, like we see with student loans and college.
    - totony 5y ago
      A lot of countries nationalised these services since they're essential. Nothing stops the US from doing the same.
      - giantg2 5y ago
        That's not what the proposal is suggesting, and not really part of most UBI proposals.

Msw242 5y ago

The article has a chart. This is a transfer from the very poorest to the middle and upper middle class (how much revenue does a tax on millionaires really accomplish?) I'll take it because it would benefit me, but that doesn't make it great policy. Also most UBI supporters aren't usually on the same side of an issue as AEI.

totony 5y ago
The chart shows a slight negative for the very poorest (that are eligible for benefits - it doesn't seem to take into account the people that don't pay taxes, aka the very very poorest, who would presumably not see such a loss). Although this is fixable by taxing more the middle class if that's what we wish to do (aka, not being "budget-neutral")
- Msw242 5y ago
  "slight negative" is a net loss of what looks like 15k or over 1/3 of the cash value of their current benefits.