4 ms·

I think the premisr of the proposition is that UBI makes housing assistances superfluous, since UBI should cover basic needs.

by totony 5y ago

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
        > 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
        relaxing 5y ago
        > That 50% is the part paid by Section 8. The part not paid by Section 8 is expected to be about 30% of income An excellent point to keep in mind that receiving assistance doesn’t mean you have no other source of income, so the situation likely would not be as dire as you suggest. You seem to be hung up on the proposal from the CNBC link? Which is a strawman purposely designed by the right wing think tank AEI with the flaws you’ve keyed in on, so that it can be easily batted down like a strawman should.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    "You think every homeless family gets a $7000 apartment?" No, and it's pretty disingenuous for you to put words in my mouth. It's not so much what HUD spends as what those individuals would need to pay. $500 is an extremely low estimate that would still mean $6k per year (assuming they live in the cheapest stuff they can find). Average costs in most cities for a studio apartment are generally over $1k, giving about $12k per year. This is only one of the many things eliminated under the proposal. Healthcare is the real big rock and could bankrupt anyone needing substantial care. Even just premiums run from $150-300 per month for the cheapest plans (depending on various factors).

I think the premisr of the proposition is that UBI makes housing assistances superfluous, since UBI should cover basic needs.

by 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
      > 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
      - relaxing 5y ago
        > That 50% is the part paid by Section 8. The part not paid by Section 8 is expected to be about 30% of income An excellent point to keep in mind that receiving assistance doesn’t mean you have no other source of income, so the situation likely would not be as dire as you suggest. You seem to be hung up on the proposal from the CNBC link? Which is a strawman purposely designed by the right wing think tank AEI with the flaws you’ve keyed in on, so that it can be easily batted down like a strawman should.
- giantg2 5y ago
  "You think every homeless family gets a $7000 apartment?" No, and it's pretty disingenuous for you to put words in my mouth. It's not so much what HUD spends as what those individuals would need to pay. $500 is an extremely low estimate that would still mean $6k per year (assuming they live in the cheapest stuff they can find). Average costs in most cities for a studio apartment are generally over $1k, giving about $12k per year. This is only one of the many things eliminated under the proposal. Healthcare is the real big rock and could bankrupt anyone needing substantial care. Even just premiums run from $150-300 per month for the cheapest plans (depending on various factors).