4 ms·

If we want to help people, I think the first step is to assign each person/family an advocate. Someone who looks out for the person in need and reaches out to t

If we want to help people, I think the first step is to assign each person/family an advocate. Someone who looks out for the person in need and reaches out to them. That person could help navigate the bureaucracy, explain to people their options, etc. Sadly, most people have to advocate for themselves. They have to research what they need to do to get benefits, try to figure out how to navigate the poorly designed system, make calls, fill out paperwork, submit documents, etc. Poor people may not have the mental/emotional energy to go through all this. I know, I know. Sometimes this is the system behaving as designed. The government makes it hard for people to get benefits so it doesn't have to pay as much. Such design is despicable.

lotsofpulp 4y ago
> If we want to help people, I think the first step is to assign each person/family an advocate. The first and last step is to just give them cash. Give everyone cash indiscriminately. If we want to help people. To ensure the the wealth is not being transferred from poor to wealthy, you have marginal income/wealth or marginal sales tax rates.
- dsr_ 4y ago
  You mean progressive rather than marginal, but yes. You can give people cash. You also have to kill a lot of restrictive zoning laws, because new housing can't be built until they go away. You need to require new housing to pay for new infrastructure to support itself, and then you need to require old housing to pay for maintaining their infrastructure, too. You need to kill off local funding of education in favor of universal funding of education, because otherwise the poor kids get substandard schools and teachers. You need to fund public transit, and it needs to be aimed at getting people not just from their homes to work and back, but also to schools and stores and entertainment. Everything has to be automatically indexed to inflation, or else you get the same problem ten to twenty years later.
- Spivak 4y ago
  Yeah, but it won't ever happen because it lays bare the function of taxation as (mostly -- sin taxes and virtue credits being the exception) the vehicle for a wealth transfer from rich to poor. And if we actually admit that then we have to deal with the awkwardness that is why even bother taxing people below the breakeven point?
- RHSeeger 4y ago
  While I think UBI is an interesting idea, it most certainly is _not_ the only thing to be done; it is not a silver bullet that will solve all problems related to money.
- jnovek 4y ago
  Interestingly, UBI is usually regressive for disabled people. It’s just straight-up more expensive to be disabled than non-disabled. This was a big discussion in the disabilities community around Yang’s UBI in 2020. I find UBI intriguing, but it wouldn’t necessarily free us from complexities like this.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    Yes, there may be situations where certain people need more assistance than others. And it would require a bureaucracy to qualify and whatnot, but that is the same as the situation now. At least with a minimum amount of straight cash to everyone, a significant portion of the population no longer has to jump through hurdles.
    - jnovek 4y ago
      “And it would require a bureaucracy to qualify and whatnot, but that is the same as the situation now.” I’m certain it would be less onerous than what we deal with now. It’s hard to describe the disability process as anything but “onerous”. As long as those with needs greater than the average population are accounted for, I (cautiously) favor this idea. One of the hardest things about being disabled is that suddenly many people feel entitled to make choices for you. I sorely miss having the control and choice in my life that I had when I was able to work.
      - lotsofpulp 4y ago
        Yes, I meant that at least most of the overhead is removed, and society can focus other resources on those who can use additional help.
    - daenz 4y ago
      I thought one of the big benefits of UBI was that it does away with all other social programs? Are you saying that is no longer the case?
      - 4y ago
cryptonector 4y ago
That's quite the employment program you're proposing.

lotsofpulp 4y ago

> If we want to help people, I think the first step is to assign each person/family an advocate. The first and last step is to just give them cash. Give everyone cash indiscriminately. If we want to help people. To ensure the the wealth is not being transferred from poor to wealthy, you have marginal income/wealth or marginal sales tax rates.

dsr_ 4y ago
You mean progressive rather than marginal, but yes. You can give people cash. You also have to kill a lot of restrictive zoning laws, because new housing can't be built until they go away. You need to require new housing to pay for new infrastructure to support itself, and then you need to require old housing to pay for maintaining their infrastructure, too. You need to kill off local funding of education in favor of universal funding of education, because otherwise the poor kids get substandard schools and teachers. You need to fund public transit, and it needs to be aimed at getting people not just from their homes to work and back, but also to schools and stores and entertainment. Everything has to be automatically indexed to inflation, or else you get the same problem ten to twenty years later.
Spivak 4y ago
Yeah, but it won't ever happen because it lays bare the function of taxation as (mostly -- sin taxes and virtue credits being the exception) the vehicle for a wealth transfer from rich to poor. And if we actually admit that then we have to deal with the awkwardness that is why even bother taxing people below the breakeven point?
RHSeeger 4y ago
While I think UBI is an interesting idea, it most certainly is _not_ the only thing to be done; it is not a silver bullet that will solve all problems related to money.
jnovek 4y ago
Interestingly, UBI is usually regressive for disabled people. It’s just straight-up more expensive to be disabled than non-disabled. This was a big discussion in the disabilities community around Yang’s UBI in 2020. I find UBI intriguing, but it wouldn’t necessarily free us from complexities like this.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  Yes, there may be situations where certain people need more assistance than others. And it would require a bureaucracy to qualify and whatnot, but that is the same as the situation now. At least with a minimum amount of straight cash to everyone, a significant portion of the population no longer has to jump through hurdles.
  - jnovek 4y ago
    “And it would require a bureaucracy to qualify and whatnot, but that is the same as the situation now.” I’m certain it would be less onerous than what we deal with now. It’s hard to describe the disability process as anything but “onerous”. As long as those with needs greater than the average population are accounted for, I (cautiously) favor this idea. One of the hardest things about being disabled is that suddenly many people feel entitled to make choices for you. I sorely miss having the control and choice in my life that I had when I was able to work.
    - lotsofpulp 4y ago
      Yes, I meant that at least most of the overhead is removed, and society can focus other resources on those who can use additional help.
  - daenz 4y ago
    I thought one of the big benefits of UBI was that it does away with all other social programs? Are you saying that is no longer the case?
    - 4y ago

cryptonector 4y ago

That's quite the employment program you're proposing.