3 ms·

If you're referring to the issue with inflation over time making old policy numbers no longer make sense, it could definitely happen, though I think most UBI pr

If you're referring to the issue with inflation over time making old policy numbers no longer make sense, it could definitely happen, though I think most UBI proponents prefer a design that automatically adjusts for inflation for exactly this reason. But if you're referring to the part where onerous means testing and other eligibility rules make life harder for the very people we want to help, then no, I think one of the fundamental benefits of a UBI is that it avoids all of that.

daenz 4y ago
>I think one of the greatest features of UBI is that it gets rid of all of that by design. But you can't guarantee that "by design", only "by name." As we know with politics, the name of a program is not tightly coupled to its effect.
- mgfist 4y ago
  UBI is a concept not a policy. Sure the government could create a policy called "UBI" and literally anything could be in it.
  - daenz 4y ago
    I'm not asking about the extreme mischaracterization of my position of "literally anything." I'm asking what safeguards are in place to keep UBI, as we know the term, from evolving into UBI-asterisk, with conditions on the recipients. So far the strongest counter argument I have seen is "well then it wouldn't technically be UBI", which doesn't fix anything.
    - paulmd 4y ago
      Without a constitutional amendment there’s no guarantee of anything, future congress being bound by past congress is a fundamentally terrible idea. Imagine what the slaveholders in the early 1800s would have tried to do if they could have passed a “slaves forever and nobody can ever change this law” bill (which indeed was what the confederacy tried to do with its constitution). Even then you are subject to future amendments and future courts that interpret that what you really meant by “universal” was only that the government had to pay at least $0.01 to everyone so actually policy X is still universal. There are no “forever guarantees” and indeed that would be awful, the living should never be irrevocably bound by the hand of the dead.

daenz 4y ago

>I think one of the greatest features of UBI is that it gets rid of all of that by design. But you can't guarantee that "by design", only "by name." As we know with politics, the name of a program is not tightly coupled to its effect.

mgfist 4y ago
UBI is a concept not a policy. Sure the government could create a policy called "UBI" and literally anything could be in it.
- daenz 4y ago
  I'm not asking about the extreme mischaracterization of my position of "literally anything." I'm asking what safeguards are in place to keep UBI, as we know the term, from evolving into UBI-asterisk, with conditions on the recipients. So far the strongest counter argument I have seen is "well then it wouldn't technically be UBI", which doesn't fix anything.
  - paulmd 4y ago
    Without a constitutional amendment there’s no guarantee of anything, future congress being bound by past congress is a fundamentally terrible idea. Imagine what the slaveholders in the early 1800s would have tried to do if they could have passed a “slaves forever and nobody can ever change this law” bill (which indeed was what the confederacy tried to do with its constitution). Even then you are subject to future amendments and future courts that interpret that what you really meant by “universal” was only that the government had to pay at least $0.01 to everyone so actually policy X is still universal. There are no “forever guarantees” and indeed that would be awful, the living should never be irrevocably bound by the hand of the dead.