3 ms·

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

by 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?
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    I do not think that is possible, assuming society wants ro provide greater assistance to those with certain disadvantages, such as disabilities.
guerrilla 4y ago
Also, how does it not just end up in inflation where disabled people can't afford to live, back at the original problem but now with extra steps?
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  Increased taxes on on higher income/wealth people. The goal would also be to reduce income/wealth gap.

by jnovek 4y ago

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?
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  I do not think that is possible, assuming society wants ro provide greater assistance to those with certain disadvantages, such as disabilities.

guerrilla 4y ago

Also, how does it not just end up in inflation where disabled people can't afford to live, back at the original problem but now with extra steps?

lotsofpulp 4y ago
Increased taxes on on higher income/wealth people. The goal would also be to reduce income/wealth gap.