5 ms·

I think so. Every other attempt I have ever heard of governments providing some sort of subsidy is always met by all sorts of schemes and incentives to try to g

I think so. Every other attempt I have ever heard of governments providing some sort of subsidy is always met by all sorts of schemes and incentives to try to game them. It would seem "being a person" is such a basic and unassailable standard that SURELY governments would be able to get a handle on that, right? Except, well, if you look at any discussion about election security, benefits payments, etc., in any area decently complex nation, it will quickly reveal that the devil is in the details when it comes to stuff like that, and that even in standards like that all sorts of fraudulent schemes abound. This is all, of course, not taking the context of a sort of GLOBAL UBI approach, where the possibilities to fake/forge "personhood" would be even easier.

runako 5y ago
I can name a couple of other blocking issues: - political will - perceived lack of funds Without the political will, this will not move. In America, we don't even have the political will to fund a social safety net on par with other industrialized nations. I would bet my money that no American living today will see UBI in America.
pavlov 5y ago
This is one of the areas where Americans see their own decrepit government infrastructure and extrapolate that all developed nations struggle with the same basic things. I lived for 35 years in Finland, and the government there has absolutely no problems verifying who’s a person. If Finland wanted to implement UBI, it could start sending money to resident citizens’ bank accounts tomorrow. Paper checks and other American-style 19th century banking relics are simply not a thing. Nobody needs crypto or a VC-funded eyeball scanner to get there, it just takes political will.
- runako 5y ago
  Verifying personhood in America is not even a problem. The tax authorities are in the process right now of sending money to many (most?) Americans in the form of income tax refunds. There is no widespread concern about those payments being fraudulent, despite the fact that they are specifically payments to individuals.
  - tyrfing 5y ago
    > There is no widespread concern about those payments being fraudulent Tax refund fraud is a big problem, and the IRS, DOJ, etc have put a lot of effort into limiting it. Numbers are hard to find, but in 2013 it seems there was $30 billion in fraud, or around 10% of all refunds, with about $6 billion unrecovered.
    - AlexandrB 5y ago
      This might be an unpopular opinion, but any social program must be able to accept some level of "shrinkage" in the form of fraud. Just as retail businesses generally accept some level of loss to theft, return fraud, and shipping damage. Trying to create an "ungameable" system will either create a bloated bureaucracy that no one will want to use or will require a surveillance panopticon. That's not to say that fraud should no be investigated and prosecuted. Just that it's important to accept that you will never get fraud to zero and there will always be that one guy who's collecting benefits for a bunch of made-up identities.
    - UncleMeat 5y ago
      10% is not very much when it comes to barriers to UBI. If you told somebody who supported UBI that it was going to cost $1.1*X rather than $X, would they stop supporting it? If you told somebody who opposed UBI that it was going to cost $0.91*X rather than $X, would they stop opposing it?
    - runako 5y ago
      This is a good point. By widespread concern, I meant rather that tax return fraud generally does not rise to the level of campaign issue for people aspiring to political leadership.
    - actuallyalys 5y ago
      I'm not actually sure whether refunds or total revenue is the appropriate denominator. The IRS collected about $3 trillion dollars in revenue, which would bring the rate down to 1 percent. On the one hand, refunds are linked to the total tax paid. On the other hand, there's other kinds of tax evasion, which would raise the fraud rate up again.
- d110af5ccf 5y ago
  > decrepit government infrastructure This is a common misconception. It's a political battle regarding the extent to which the government is permitted to tabulate and link the various details of people's lives. > could start sending money to resident citizens’ bank accounts tomorrow That ability implies keeping and regularly querying detailed information about individuals that many here aren't comfortable with. > Paper checks and other American-style 19th century banking relics are simply not a thing. The system isn't as bad as you seem to be making out. Using a credit card without a chip is effectively the same thing. It's simply a claim that a numbered account has agreed to transfer you funds. Lying about that is fraud and your financial institution will have identifying details about you.

runako 5y ago

I can name a couple of other blocking issues: - political will - perceived lack of funds Without the political will, this will not move. In America, we don't even have the political will to fund a social safety net on par with other industrialized nations. I would bet my money that no American living today will see UBI in America.

pavlov 5y ago

This is one of the areas where Americans see their own decrepit government infrastructure and extrapolate that all developed nations struggle with the same basic things. I lived for 35 years in Finland, and the government there has absolutely no problems verifying who’s a person. If Finland wanted to implement UBI, it could start sending money to resident citizens’ bank accounts tomorrow. Paper checks and other American-style 19th century banking relics are simply not a thing. Nobody needs crypto or a VC-funded eyeball scanner to get there, it just takes political will.

runako 5y ago
Verifying personhood in America is not even a problem. The tax authorities are in the process right now of sending money to many (most?) Americans in the form of income tax refunds. There is no widespread concern about those payments being fraudulent, despite the fact that they are specifically payments to individuals.
- tyrfing 5y ago
  > There is no widespread concern about those payments being fraudulent Tax refund fraud is a big problem, and the IRS, DOJ, etc have put a lot of effort into limiting it. Numbers are hard to find, but in 2013 it seems there was $30 billion in fraud, or around 10% of all refunds, with about $6 billion unrecovered.
  - AlexandrB 5y ago
    This might be an unpopular opinion, but any social program must be able to accept some level of "shrinkage" in the form of fraud. Just as retail businesses generally accept some level of loss to theft, return fraud, and shipping damage. Trying to create an "ungameable" system will either create a bloated bureaucracy that no one will want to use or will require a surveillance panopticon. That's not to say that fraud should no be investigated and prosecuted. Just that it's important to accept that you will never get fraud to zero and there will always be that one guy who's collecting benefits for a bunch of made-up identities.
  - UncleMeat 5y ago
    10% is not very much when it comes to barriers to UBI. If you told somebody who supported UBI that it was going to cost $1.1*X rather than $X, would they stop supporting it? If you told somebody who opposed UBI that it was going to cost $0.91*X rather than $X, would they stop opposing it?
  - runako 5y ago
    This is a good point. By widespread concern, I meant rather that tax return fraud generally does not rise to the level of campaign issue for people aspiring to political leadership.
  - actuallyalys 5y ago
    I'm not actually sure whether refunds or total revenue is the appropriate denominator. The IRS collected about $3 trillion dollars in revenue, which would bring the rate down to 1 percent. On the one hand, refunds are linked to the total tax paid. On the other hand, there's other kinds of tax evasion, which would raise the fraud rate up again.
d110af5ccf 5y ago
> decrepit government infrastructure This is a common misconception. It's a political battle regarding the extent to which the government is permitted to tabulate and link the various details of people's lives. > could start sending money to resident citizens’ bank accounts tomorrow That ability implies keeping and regularly querying detailed information about individuals that many here aren't comfortable with. > Paper checks and other American-style 19th century banking relics are simply not a thing. The system isn't as bad as you seem to be making out. Using a credit card without a chip is effectively the same thing. It's simply a claim that a numbered account has agreed to transfer you funds. Lying about that is fraud and your financial institution will have identifying details about you.