10 ms·

What the spread of universal basic-income schemes says about Americas safety net

61 points by MoSattler 4y ago

MoSattler 4y ago
https://archive.ph/y9kR0 https://archive.ph/y9kR0
vageli 4y ago
The scheme outlined is not UBI in that it is not universal (subject to income requirements) and money is allocated by lottery. I haven't seen earnest UBI proposals suggesting a lottery style distribution and means testing is counter to the concept of UBI.
- IanCal 4y ago
  Lottery allocation surely is about creating a randomised trial, no? (Edit - got access to the article now, doesn't seem like it? Lotteries have been done before because it gives a good trial design) And income requirements just make it a UBI with an adjusted tax code.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
t-writescode 4y ago
> have a household income of less than 250% of the federal poverty line—about $69,000 for a family of four—and not be claiming from any other similar schemes Does this mean that they can't be collecting SNAP or medicaid? or?
t-writescode 4y ago
Separate comment to keep the thoughts separate: This is a reminder that the United States has several Welfare Cliffs - places where, if you make $X more than a certain amount, an entire benefit disappears completely; and, was previously a considerable benefit. For all the people that talk about educational ignorance when it comes to "I make more money, so now I make less because I'm in a new tax bracket", in the US, we actually do have one of those cliffs with regards to Medicaid, etc, at around $40k / year. And don't get me started on the "disabled people can't actually get a job because they'll lose their disability check" situation. As a whole, this country's policies really need to update when it comes to facilitating people to get out of traps they find themselves in - because the trap is actually safer than outside the trap - they literally make more money and have a higher standard of living. A poor person making money legally should never be a punishment.
- epicureanideal 4y ago
  Also note that a lot of these government programs come with some amount of bureaucratic entanglement, where the person needs to fill out a bunch of forms repeatedly, visit government offices, be scrutinized by the government, and so on, all of which can detract from their efforts to better themselves and find employment. Separate thought: with so much focus on the oppressed and downtrodden in our politics these days, how is it that obvious problems like the parent commenter mentions are not being fixed? Why aren't reasonable people of both parties trying to create the right incentive structures for the poor at least in areas where they both agree?
  - analog31 4y ago
    All it takes is 10 people to wreck everything right now. And those people think that making society more fragile and cutthroat will somehow make us more moral, and in turn, more prosperous.
    - mjevans 4y ago
      We're more divided than ever, and those ~10 people in the larger legislative chamber of the US Federal government will metaphorically kick and scream and whinge as they try to hold the entire country hostage... and the other ~210 who happen to claim to be in the same political party will let them out of a desire to keep some illusion of control they don't have, rather than compromise at all and work for the benefit of everyone.
      - matthewdgreen 4y ago
        I think the 210 can rightly point to over a decade of compromising, and they can make a pretty compelling case that every compromise led to more extreme and dangerous behavior from that small minority. I say this as someone who supported this compromises and now deeply regrets it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_States_debt-ceiling_crisis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_States_debt-ceil...
Izkata 4y ago
The article does not address the question posed in the title. It's just a summary of some recent attempts at pseudo-UBI, without even attempting to show a net positive outcome from those attempts. Also isn't this: > They are paid for by the flood of money made available by the federal government for relief schemes during the worst of the pandemic. a misuse of funds that were supposed to be returned? (or am I misremembering the "supposed to be returned" part from something else?)
- dTal 4y ago
  Yes, the title is essentially clickbait, teasing at some sort of interesting point which it completely forgets about. Even if it had bothered to make an argument, places all over the world are trialing "UBI" schemes, including places with robust social safety nets, not just the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income_pilots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income_pilots I suggest that there's nothing particularly special about the US's UBI pilots.
- AtlasBarfed 4y ago
  Any pandemic money that reaches actual people is fine with me. The amount of free money given to companies and corporations in the pandemic was outrageous, except that Americans are conditioned to accept any and all corporate giveaways without any oversight or even debate.
nmca 4y ago
Does anyone have good analysis of what one should expect widely available UBI to do to prices?
- fuzzfactor 4y ago
  For US dollars I think the most widely available UBI is Social Security, even though it's only universal after retirement age, and only for those that paid into the program. It's still quite significant and over the decades prices have tended to adjust such that the benefit itself is never quite enough to retire on.
- scotty79 4y ago
  I don't have analysis but I expect rents and mortgages will just go up by the amount of UBI. The rest of the economy will get scraps.
  - tgv 4y ago
    It's going to be much more complicated: think of the people that no longer want to work for low wages. That, plus the housing will push the inflation so much that the basic income might no longer be sufficient. And that's just one effect. So, I have no hopes that UBI can succeed. But to call other forms of support UBI, like the article does to handing out $500 to support a few thousand, is a disgrace. There should be a safety net for poverty, a sufficient minimum wage, and socialized/nationalized health care. Lotteries and other utilitarian approaches from people who would like to call themselves benefactors are ridiculous.
    - scotty79 4y ago
      It can succeed if it's introduced along with progressive property tax. The more property you own, the higher percentage of its value you pay each year as a tax.
      - tgv 4y ago
        I don't see how that can stop inflation, or even rent increases. Progressive taxes still leave a positive net income on every extra dollar/euro/whatever you earn. It might spurn property owners to increase the prices even more.
DoingIsLearning 4y ago
> Applicants had to meet only three criteria to qualify: they needed to live in Cook County (which covers the city of Chicago and a large portion of its suburbs) and have a household income of less than 250% of the federal poverty line—about $69,000 for a family of four—and not be claiming from any other similar schemes. As with all these trials, this is not universal. Universal means we treat 'basic income' as a fundamental right, like public healthcare (in the countries that have it). This means Gates and Bezos would also get $500 as a tax break or income. Unless we decouple this money from our own 'fairness' biases then it will never be _universal_.
- bombolo 4y ago
  Ah yes the "wait, black/white/mexican/muslim/chinese people would get this too? Then NO WELFARE AT ALL!" problem :(
  - tarotuser 4y ago
    I seem to remember a CNN article interviewing citizens just after 2018, when the majority party of republicans were installed. They campaigned on reducing/killing welfare, as they do. The citizenry that were interviewed seriously thought it was "reducing welfare for those people. We didnt think they meant us".
    - mind-blight 4y ago
      Do you have a link to the article/video? I shouldn't be, but I'm always surprised when the racism is that blatant
      - mgkimsal 4y ago
        This isn't quite the same, but "I thought he was going to do good things. He's not hurting the people he needs to be hurting" is a quote from this Vox article https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/8/18173678/trump-shutdown-voter-florida https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/8/18173678/tr...
shrubble 4y ago
UBI just seems like the dumbest idea, and frankly, almost appears to be a psyop meant to distract. There is so much wrong with many of America's systems like health care and housing, with UBI a bandaid solution. Fix the systems first, then see if you even need UBI to begin with...
- scotty79 4y ago
  UBI is something that the rich people are starting to need. Because poor people are sucked dry now so they need injection of fresh money so they can be sucked further by the rich.
  - cudgy 4y ago
    Pouring water from the rich guy’s pool into the public reservoir today; only to fill the pool back the next day. The gesture is there, but no net effect on the water supply. Genius!
    - scotty79 4y ago
      It's perfect from the point of view of the rich. Especially since they might end up with some of their other rich neighbor pool water that they couldn't get their hands on before.
  - richwater 4y ago
    We already had that, it was called COVID relief spending and was championed by both political parties.
    - cudgy 4y ago
      Similar but covid spending was still targeted mostly to corps and people on unemployment, which is far from universal.
    - scotty79 4y ago
      That's why it happened. Rich knew this money ends up with them ultimately. That's why UBI might happen, because rich know they will be the ultimate benficiaries. So they can let it happen.
127 4y ago
From an outsider perspective the obvious goals to fix is health care, homelessness and housing. For some reason people jump into completely tangential things like UBI. America has both the strength and intelligence. Does it have the will? If not, why?
- fwip 4y ago
  American systems (both governmental and corporate) are really complex. Much of the call for UBI is based on the recognition that living in America only really works if you have money. Giving everybody "enough" money seems simpler than reforming all of our broken systems. (Opinions are divided on whether UBI should replace, or only supplement, existing welfare schemes). Supporting quote from the article: > Americans who fall on hard times can access a panoply of different schemes, at both a local and a federal level. There are disability benefits; food stamps; section 8 housing vouchers; Medicaid; and unemployment insurance (which is paid for and administered by states, but in crises often expanded federally). Most of this comes with an extraordinary amount of bureaucracy, however, and many people fall through the cracks—for example, because they do not have a permanent address, or they fail to file the right forms, or they do not qualify. Local governments generally do not have the data to even identify the people most in need.
  - treis 4y ago
    UBI is the recognition that what we pay in services to the poor is more than enough money for them to buy what they need on the open market. The problem is that money is locked up by the bureaucracy who pilfers most of it. Or at least that's what the argument is. I also think this is country thing. Europe tends to have job markets where private jobs aren't much different than government ones. In the US the difference is stark. Government jobs are basically for life while private ones can fire you the next minute. For all it's drawbacks the ability to fire quickly has a marked effect on business efficiency. There's potentially a large efficiency gain by moving employment from government to private sector. Or at least so the argument goes.
- nradov 4y ago
  Healthcare can't be fixed. We are headed over a demographic cliff with an aging population and an increasing incidence of chronic metabolic diseases caused by lifestyle factors. Those patients have effectively infinite demand for healthcare. Switching to a single-payer system or nationalizing provider organizations or whatever won't fix the root cause. So, we are going to end up with longer queues, lower service quality, and more explicit rationing no matter what we do. If we want to maintain a high-quality healthcare system, then the only option will be to reduce demand through incentivizing people to make healthier lifestyle choices. That will require sweeping, systemic changes and may not be politically feasible.
retrac 4y ago
I've noticed that poverty at the very bottom in the US is often more stark than here in Canada. In the USA, like here, there are social security programs for disabled people, and for families with children, but there's not really any general income support program for destitute adults. There's no program akin to what is generally just called welfare in Ontario. (Technically known as "Ontario Works" which gives you an idea of the intent of the program.) The maximum amount is somewhat under 500 USD a month, and includes some things like drug insurance or maybe a transit pass. depending on municipality. Long-term recipients may get placed in various work training or work placement programs of varying quality. It's possible (and encouraged) to earn income while receiving welfare; the welfare is reduced $1 for each $2 earned. A person can be disqualified for not complying with program requirements to find work or engage in training, but it's pretty rare in practice from what I know. The number of long-term recipients is quite low anyway. ~120,000 single adult recipients, about 40,000 for 1+ year, out of a population of 15 million. Total welfare spending by the province is about $2 billion out of a $160 billion budget. We are not particularly generous with our social programs compared to some comparably wealthy European countries, for example. But when you have absolutely no income, even that pittance seems to matter a lot.
- 2h 4y ago
  Yes even $500 would be quite helpful for people down on their luck. It's not enough for rent, but just about everything else. You could get an old car, or clothes, shower, any number of vital goods to help you get back on your feet.
  - merth 4y ago
    [flagged]
Nifty3929 4y ago
A while ago I wrote up what I think is the perfect UBI: Summary A new flat tax on all income, in addition to existing taxes. Distributions are exactly equal to all people Tax revenue is set aside for immediate redistribution. It never touches the general budget Distributions are based exactly on the revenue from the tax. There is no commitment to any particular amount Details The tax would be a percentage of income that is the same for everybody. No brackets or exemptions. 10% might be a good place to start. All Income must be included in the taxable amount, including payments from this program. No exceptions. It particular it would include capital gains, dividends and carried interest. ALL income from ALL sources. The definition of ‘person’ who is eligible would require a bit of thought. At a minimum, all adult citizens should be included. Whether to include children or various types of non-citizens is debatable. In any case, anyone eligible for distribution must also pay the tax. Tax is set aside for immediate redistribution (say, monthly). It never touches the general budget. It requires no ongoing authorization. It never gets invested in anything (definitely not government bonds) or held for any substantial length of time. The calculations on which the payments are made might happen somewhat less frequently than the payments themselves, for example annual calculations but monthly payments. This probably makes things a bit more stable for people in the short-term. Let’s not create a new administrative agency, let’s just use the Social Security Office. They’ve been doing a fine-enough job distributing cash to millions of Americans and have all the infrastructure in place. And this program is similar to SSI anyway. Advantages: The system is self-adjusting. Because there is no guaranteed payment amount and it’s based just on the amount collected from the tax, then as people work less, the payment will be lower and people at the margin will more likely choose to work, pushing the tax revenue back up. As more people work, the tax and corresponding payments go up. There will always be some free riders – but that’s a feature, not a bug. If you have enough money and don’t want to work anymore – then don’t. That’s okay. The important thing is that because this program wouldn’t be means-tested, then there is never a dis-incentive to working more if you want more money. This contrasts with something like unemployment insurance and all other means-tested government programs, which DO penalize you for working more, by reducing or eliminating your benefit. Not subject to the whims of politicians. Because the revenue from the tax never enters the general budget or is invested in any way, there is no way for politicians to use it for their own ends, or to tie it up in political battles. It preserves freedom and dignity. An important part of being a free person is the ability to choose for yourself. It’s something that many of us take for granted, but any program that comes with strings attached, vouchers, subsidies or earmarks is a way for politicians and bureaucrats to control what the beneficiaries do and thereby take away their freedoms, dignity and basic humanity. Distributions from this program will be made equally to all, with no strings. People have the dignity and responsibility to choose for themselves.
jeff-davis 4y ago
"Most of this comes with an extraordinary amount of bureaucracy" Navigating bureaucracy involves skill and willpower. A lot of schemes rely on people failing at it (public and private).
LatteLazy 4y ago
I feel like most western countries have very lop sided "safety nets". Here in the UK, some people make out like dogs while others get nothing. Spending is huge yet there are a lot of people doing without. Partly that's a political issue. Then there are various poverty traps and ludicrous outcomes. UBIs solve all this.
cudgy 4y ago
Sorry, but how is $500 for roughly 3,250 people out of 250,000 applicants “universal basic income”? It is far from universal and, while certainly helpful, it does not qualify as a basic income.
gumby 4y ago
This is a good article, though I wish it hadn't been referred to as UBI -- it was a basic income study. And more studies like this will, I hope, help persuade more people that UBI is an excellent idea. Among other things it can sweep up some of the patchwork of other programs, reducing their administrative costs, and so not cost as much as one might at first think. Speaking of those other programs (brought up in the article), I with someone could make a phone app that managed the applications and such for people who need them. Some are disabled and need assistance; some are working two jobs to make ands meet, and all of them, by definition, have troubles (transport, kids, jobs) getting to the required meetings. Almost everybody has a phone; many have no other device. Having everything assembled ahead of time, with generated forms that could be printed out at the library, could make life easier for applicants and save time (thus taxpayer money) for the people working in social services. This would have to be a charity-supported effort, and would need ongoing maintenance. And of course, making life easier for applicants is against state policy in some jurisdictions.
RickJWagner 4y ago
During Covid, the government mailed money to a lot of people. Some used it for necessities. Some saved it. Some did crazy things like bid up GameStop and demonstrate 'diamond hands'. All things considered, it encouraged bad financial habits. It'll never be practical.

61 points by MoSattler 4y ago

https://archive.ph/y9kR0 https://archive.ph/y9kR0

The scheme outlined is not UBI in that it is not universal (subject to income requirements) and money is allocated by lottery. I haven't seen earnest UBI proposals suggesting a lottery style distribution and means testing is counter to the concept of UBI.

IanCal 4y ago
Lottery allocation surely is about creating a randomised trial, no? (Edit - got access to the article now, doesn't seem like it? Lotteries have been done before because it gives a good trial design) And income requirements just make it a UBI with an adjusted tax code.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

t-writescode 4y ago

> have a household income of less than 250% of the federal poverty line—about $69,000 for a family of four—and not be claiming from any other similar schemes Does this mean that they can't be collecting SNAP or medicaid? or?

t-writescode 4y ago

Separate comment to keep the thoughts separate: This is a reminder that the United States has several Welfare Cliffs - places where, if you make $X more than a certain amount, an entire benefit disappears completely; and, was previously a considerable benefit. For all the people that talk about educational ignorance when it comes to "I make more money, so now I make less because I'm in a new tax bracket", in the US, we actually do have one of those cliffs with regards to Medicaid, etc, at around $40k / year. And don't get me started on the "disabled people can't actually get a job because they'll lose their disability check" situation. As a whole, this country's policies really need to update when it comes to facilitating people to get out of traps they find themselves in - because the trap is actually safer than outside the trap - they literally make more money and have a higher standard of living. A poor person making money legally should never be a punishment.

epicureanideal 4y ago
Also note that a lot of these government programs come with some amount of bureaucratic entanglement, where the person needs to fill out a bunch of forms repeatedly, visit government offices, be scrutinized by the government, and so on, all of which can detract from their efforts to better themselves and find employment. Separate thought: with so much focus on the oppressed and downtrodden in our politics these days, how is it that obvious problems like the parent commenter mentions are not being fixed? Why aren't reasonable people of both parties trying to create the right incentive structures for the poor at least in areas where they both agree?
- analog31 4y ago
  All it takes is 10 people to wreck everything right now. And those people think that making society more fragile and cutthroat will somehow make us more moral, and in turn, more prosperous.
  - mjevans 4y ago
    We're more divided than ever, and those ~10 people in the larger legislative chamber of the US Federal government will metaphorically kick and scream and whinge as they try to hold the entire country hostage... and the other ~210 who happen to claim to be in the same political party will let them out of a desire to keep some illusion of control they don't have, rather than compromise at all and work for the benefit of everyone.
    - matthewdgreen 4y ago
      I think the 210 can rightly point to over a decade of compromising, and they can make a pretty compelling case that every compromise led to more extreme and dangerous behavior from that small minority. I say this as someone who supported this compromises and now deeply regrets it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_States_debt-ceiling_crisis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_States_debt-ceil...

Izkata 4y ago

The article does not address the question posed in the title. It's just a summary of some recent attempts at pseudo-UBI, without even attempting to show a net positive outcome from those attempts. Also isn't this: > They are paid for by the flood of money made available by the federal government for relief schemes during the worst of the pandemic. a misuse of funds that were supposed to be returned? (or am I misremembering the "supposed to be returned" part from something else?)

dTal 4y ago
Yes, the title is essentially clickbait, teasing at some sort of interesting point which it completely forgets about. Even if it had bothered to make an argument, places all over the world are trialing "UBI" schemes, including places with robust social safety nets, not just the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income_pilots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income_pilots I suggest that there's nothing particularly special about the US's UBI pilots.
AtlasBarfed 4y ago
Any pandemic money that reaches actual people is fine with me. The amount of free money given to companies and corporations in the pandemic was outrageous, except that Americans are conditioned to accept any and all corporate giveaways without any oversight or even debate.

nmca 4y ago

Does anyone have good analysis of what one should expect widely available UBI to do to prices?

fuzzfactor 4y ago
For US dollars I think the most widely available UBI is Social Security, even though it's only universal after retirement age, and only for those that paid into the program. It's still quite significant and over the decades prices have tended to adjust such that the benefit itself is never quite enough to retire on.
scotty79 4y ago
I don't have analysis but I expect rents and mortgages will just go up by the amount of UBI. The rest of the economy will get scraps.
- tgv 4y ago
  It's going to be much more complicated: think of the people that no longer want to work for low wages. That, plus the housing will push the inflation so much that the basic income might no longer be sufficient. And that's just one effect. So, I have no hopes that UBI can succeed. But to call other forms of support UBI, like the article does to handing out $500 to support a few thousand, is a disgrace. There should be a safety net for poverty, a sufficient minimum wage, and socialized/nationalized health care. Lotteries and other utilitarian approaches from people who would like to call themselves benefactors are ridiculous.
  - scotty79 4y ago
    It can succeed if it's introduced along with progressive property tax. The more property you own, the higher percentage of its value you pay each year as a tax.
    - tgv 4y ago
      I don't see how that can stop inflation, or even rent increases. Progressive taxes still leave a positive net income on every extra dollar/euro/whatever you earn. It might spurn property owners to increase the prices even more.

DoingIsLearning 4y ago

> Applicants had to meet only three criteria to qualify: they needed to live in Cook County (which covers the city of Chicago and a large portion of its suburbs) and have a household income of less than 250% of the federal poverty line—about $69,000 for a family of four—and not be claiming from any other similar schemes. As with all these trials, this is not universal. Universal means we treat 'basic income' as a fundamental right, like public healthcare (in the countries that have it). This means Gates and Bezos would also get $500 as a tax break or income. Unless we decouple this money from our own 'fairness' biases then it will never be _universal_.

bombolo 4y ago
Ah yes the "wait, black/white/mexican/muslim/chinese people would get this too? Then NO WELFARE AT ALL!" problem :(
- tarotuser 4y ago
  I seem to remember a CNN article interviewing citizens just after 2018, when the majority party of republicans were installed. They campaigned on reducing/killing welfare, as they do. The citizenry that were interviewed seriously thought it was "reducing welfare for those people. We didnt think they meant us".
  - mind-blight 4y ago
    Do you have a link to the article/video? I shouldn't be, but I'm always surprised when the racism is that blatant
    - mgkimsal 4y ago
      This isn't quite the same, but "I thought he was going to do good things. He's not hurting the people he needs to be hurting" is a quote from this Vox article https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/8/18173678/trump-shutdown-voter-florida https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/8/18173678/tr...

shrubble 4y ago

UBI just seems like the dumbest idea, and frankly, almost appears to be a psyop meant to distract. There is so much wrong with many of America's systems like health care and housing, with UBI a bandaid solution. Fix the systems first, then see if you even need UBI to begin with...

scotty79 4y ago
UBI is something that the rich people are starting to need. Because poor people are sucked dry now so they need injection of fresh money so they can be sucked further by the rich.
- cudgy 4y ago
  Pouring water from the rich guy’s pool into the public reservoir today; only to fill the pool back the next day. The gesture is there, but no net effect on the water supply. Genius!
  - scotty79 4y ago
    It's perfect from the point of view of the rich. Especially since they might end up with some of their other rich neighbor pool water that they couldn't get their hands on before.
- richwater 4y ago
  We already had that, it was called COVID relief spending and was championed by both political parties.
  - cudgy 4y ago
    Similar but covid spending was still targeted mostly to corps and people on unemployment, which is far from universal.
  - scotty79 4y ago
    That's why it happened. Rich knew this money ends up with them ultimately. That's why UBI might happen, because rich know they will be the ultimate benficiaries. So they can let it happen.

127 4y ago

From an outsider perspective the obvious goals to fix is health care, homelessness and housing. For some reason people jump into completely tangential things like UBI. America has both the strength and intelligence. Does it have the will? If not, why?

fwip 4y ago
American systems (both governmental and corporate) are really complex. Much of the call for UBI is based on the recognition that living in America only really works if you have money. Giving everybody "enough" money seems simpler than reforming all of our broken systems. (Opinions are divided on whether UBI should replace, or only supplement, existing welfare schemes). Supporting quote from the article: > Americans who fall on hard times can access a panoply of different schemes, at both a local and a federal level. There are disability benefits; food stamps; section 8 housing vouchers; Medicaid; and unemployment insurance (which is paid for and administered by states, but in crises often expanded federally). Most of this comes with an extraordinary amount of bureaucracy, however, and many people fall through the cracks—for example, because they do not have a permanent address, or they fail to file the right forms, or they do not qualify. Local governments generally do not have the data to even identify the people most in need.
- treis 4y ago
  UBI is the recognition that what we pay in services to the poor is more than enough money for them to buy what they need on the open market. The problem is that money is locked up by the bureaucracy who pilfers most of it. Or at least that's what the argument is. I also think this is country thing. Europe tends to have job markets where private jobs aren't much different than government ones. In the US the difference is stark. Government jobs are basically for life while private ones can fire you the next minute. For all it's drawbacks the ability to fire quickly has a marked effect on business efficiency. There's potentially a large efficiency gain by moving employment from government to private sector. Or at least so the argument goes.
nradov 4y ago
Healthcare can't be fixed. We are headed over a demographic cliff with an aging population and an increasing incidence of chronic metabolic diseases caused by lifestyle factors. Those patients have effectively infinite demand for healthcare. Switching to a single-payer system or nationalizing provider organizations or whatever won't fix the root cause. So, we are going to end up with longer queues, lower service quality, and more explicit rationing no matter what we do. If we want to maintain a high-quality healthcare system, then the only option will be to reduce demand through incentivizing people to make healthier lifestyle choices. That will require sweeping, systemic changes and may not be politically feasible.

retrac 4y ago

I've noticed that poverty at the very bottom in the US is often more stark than here in Canada. In the USA, like here, there are social security programs for disabled people, and for families with children, but there's not really any general income support program for destitute adults. There's no program akin to what is generally just called welfare in Ontario. (Technically known as "Ontario Works" which gives you an idea of the intent of the program.) The maximum amount is somewhat under 500 USD a month, and includes some things like drug insurance or maybe a transit pass. depending on municipality. Long-term recipients may get placed in various work training or work placement programs of varying quality. It's possible (and encouraged) to earn income while receiving welfare; the welfare is reduced $1 for each $2 earned. A person can be disqualified for not complying with program requirements to find work or engage in training, but it's pretty rare in practice from what I know. The number of long-term recipients is quite low anyway. ~120,000 single adult recipients, about 40,000 for 1+ year, out of a population of 15 million. Total welfare spending by the province is about $2 billion out of a $160 billion budget. We are not particularly generous with our social programs compared to some comparably wealthy European countries, for example. But when you have absolutely no income, even that pittance seems to matter a lot.

2h 4y ago
Yes even $500 would be quite helpful for people down on their luck. It's not enough for rent, but just about everything else. You could get an old car, or clothes, shower, any number of vital goods to help you get back on your feet.
- merth 4y ago
  [flagged]

Nifty3929 4y ago

A while ago I wrote up what I think is the perfect UBI: Summary A new flat tax on all income, in addition to existing taxes. Distributions are exactly equal to all people Tax revenue is set aside for immediate redistribution. It never touches the general budget Distributions are based exactly on the revenue from the tax. There is no commitment to any particular amount Details The tax would be a percentage of income that is the same for everybody. No brackets or exemptions. 10% might be a good place to start. All Income must be included in the taxable amount, including payments from this program. No exceptions. It particular it would include capital gains, dividends and carried interest. ALL income from ALL sources. The definition of ‘person’ who is eligible would require a bit of thought. At a minimum, all adult citizens should be included. Whether to include children or various types of non-citizens is debatable. In any case, anyone eligible for distribution must also pay the tax. Tax is set aside for immediate redistribution (say, monthly). It never touches the general budget. It requires no ongoing authorization. It never gets invested in anything (definitely not government bonds) or held for any substantial length of time. The calculations on which the payments are made might happen somewhat less frequently than the payments themselves, for example annual calculations but monthly payments. This probably makes things a bit more stable for people in the short-term. Let’s not create a new administrative agency, let’s just use the Social Security Office. They’ve been doing a fine-enough job distributing cash to millions of Americans and have all the infrastructure in place. And this program is similar to SSI anyway. Advantages: The system is self-adjusting. Because there is no guaranteed payment amount and it’s based just on the amount collected from the tax, then as people work less, the payment will be lower and people at the margin will more likely choose to work, pushing the tax revenue back up. As more people work, the tax and corresponding payments go up. There will always be some free riders – but that’s a feature, not a bug. If you have enough money and don’t want to work anymore – then don’t. That’s okay. The important thing is that because this program wouldn’t be means-tested, then there is never a dis-incentive to working more if you want more money. This contrasts with something like unemployment insurance and all other means-tested government programs, which DO penalize you for working more, by reducing or eliminating your benefit. Not subject to the whims of politicians. Because the revenue from the tax never enters the general budget or is invested in any way, there is no way for politicians to use it for their own ends, or to tie it up in political battles. It preserves freedom and dignity. An important part of being a free person is the ability to choose for yourself. It’s something that many of us take for granted, but any program that comes with strings attached, vouchers, subsidies or earmarks is a way for politicians and bureaucrats to control what the beneficiaries do and thereby take away their freedoms, dignity and basic humanity. Distributions from this program will be made equally to all, with no strings. People have the dignity and responsibility to choose for themselves.

jeff-davis 4y ago

"Most of this comes with an extraordinary amount of bureaucracy" Navigating bureaucracy involves skill and willpower. A lot of schemes rely on people failing at it (public and private).

LatteLazy 4y ago

I feel like most western countries have very lop sided "safety nets". Here in the UK, some people make out like dogs while others get nothing. Spending is huge yet there are a lot of people doing without. Partly that's a political issue. Then there are various poverty traps and ludicrous outcomes. UBIs solve all this.

cudgy 4y ago

Sorry, but how is $500 for roughly 3,250 people out of 250,000 applicants “universal basic income”? It is far from universal and, while certainly helpful, it does not qualify as a basic income.

gumby 4y ago

This is a good article, though I wish it hadn't been referred to as UBI -- it was a basic income study. And more studies like this will, I hope, help persuade more people that UBI is an excellent idea. Among other things it can sweep up some of the patchwork of other programs, reducing their administrative costs, and so not cost as much as one might at first think. Speaking of those other programs (brought up in the article), I with someone could make a phone app that managed the applications and such for people who need them. Some are disabled and need assistance; some are working two jobs to make ands meet, and all of them, by definition, have troubles (transport, kids, jobs) getting to the required meetings. Almost everybody has a phone; many have no other device. Having everything assembled ahead of time, with generated forms that could be printed out at the library, could make life easier for applicants and save time (thus taxpayer money) for the people working in social services. This would have to be a charity-supported effort, and would need ongoing maintenance. And of course, making life easier for applicants is against state policy in some jurisdictions.

RickJWagner 4y ago

During Covid, the government mailed money to a lot of people. Some used it for necessities. Some saved it. Some did crazy things like bid up GameStop and demonstrate 'diamond hands'. All things considered, it encouraged bad financial habits. It'll never be practical.