90 ms·
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 cognitiv
by 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 agoRent 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 agoThat'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 agoI think the premisr of the proposition is that UBI makes housing assistances superfluous, since UBI should cover basic needs.
- giantg2 5y agoThat 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 agoI 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 agoHACLA 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> HACLA isn’t solely funded by HUD so the actual figure is less. Over 85% of HACLA's revenues in 2020 came directly from HUD[0]. Another 10% were from other government grants (which would also be cut). The numbers reported before were just for the Section 8 program, which AFAICT is administered by HACLA but fully funded by HUD. > Spending 50% of household income is fairly cost burdened, but not unworkable. That 50% is the part paid by Section 8. The part not paid by Section 8 is expected to be about 30% of income, which at the 2020 poverty level for a family of two would be about $5k (30% of $17.2k), so the total rent is more like $20k or 65% of their pooled UBIs. And again, this is just Section 8. If you qualify for Section 8 housing you probably qualify for some of the other programs which are also being eliminated. > Living in a big city affords more opportunities to earn income. Possibly, but then again we're talking about people who are already living in these places and still qualify for housing assistance. Telling them to get a (better) job or move somewhere cheaper isn't a viable solution. If these were reasonably solutions with UBI they would also be reasonable solutions without UBI. > Grants could help. I hope you're not suggesting federal grants since those, too, would be eliminated under this proposal. And really that just gets back to programs targeting specific needs. [0] https://online.fliphtml5.com/ctqqu/gmgb/#p=42 https://online.fliphtml5.com/ctqqu/gmgb/#p=42
- nybble41 5y agoAverage 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 agoUBI 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.
- gruez 5y agoI'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 agoIn 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 agoYeah... 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.