3 ms·

It's not hard to prove that UBI doesn't make sense. Just take the adult population, multiply by $15,000 per year and get a number that's 3 trillion or so (depen

by Gunax 4y ago

It's not hard to prove that UBI doesn't make sense. Just take the adult population, multiply by $15,000 per year and get a number that's 3 trillion or so (depending on who exactly is eligible and how much they receive). It's a perfect microcosm of debate today. Left wingers get to propose a solution. Right wingers get to call the left wingers dumb idealists. Left wingers get to call right wingers evil racists, etc.

Euphorbium 4y ago
How many trillions do you spend on war per year?
- Gunax 4y ago
  Less than one. If you think you made some grand point, consider that this can be determined in like 10 seconds of internet searching. And in fact you're just further proving my point that supporters have absolutely no idea about actual budgets. Eliminate all military, and you can increase the UBI from about 15k to 18k per year. Thanks for mentioning this though, as it's exactly the proof i needed that left wingers really dont know how a budget works.
opportune 4y ago
UBI can replace (at least partially) social security and related programs like SSI and unemployment insurance. It can maybe entirely replace SNAP and TANF. UBI would need higher taxes which for most people would likely end up being a wash or net gain. The nice thing about UBI being automatic and not means tested is it means anybody can lose their job or quit and immediately start receiving benefits. Rather than what we have now where it’s stressful and bureaucratic to get benefits, and once you are on benefits you are faced with a welfare cliff.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  Are we so certain it needs higher taxes? Have the trial schemes that have been run shown that?
wizofaus 4y ago
How can you prove that the government printing 3 trillion and handing out $15K to every adult citizen annually "doesn't make sense"? Assuming much of that will replace existing programs (e.g. the $1.2 trillion spent on social security, and a similar amount on health insurance), it's not necessarily massively more than what's currently spent.
- Gunax 4y ago
  Of course 'not making sense' is a bit subjective. The primary reason is that it's roughly 2.5x the cost. And given that social security is allready the largest expenditure and it's going to be unaffordable in it's current state, I am skeptical. If that alone is not convincing, consider that most social security recipients receive more than the proposed UBI. And as social security was income tested, you would effectively be transferring social security payments (which are ostensibly a promise/mandatory savings plan) from retirees who paid their dues, to everyone else. And consider that many benefits are that are covered now would not be available in UBI. What about people who need intensive nursing? That cannot be covered with their UBI. I actually like the general idea of replacing a patchwork of county/state/fed programs. I also like the idea of eliminating the welfare cliff. I just think the amounts being considered are so huge that it's just infeasible. Of course, you can propose a plan for how this will be paid for.
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    Or I can propose that it doesn't need to be "paid for", because it's not asking the economy to produce any more goods and services than it already does. But sure, I'd accept there'd be medical care it couldn't realistically be expected to cover.
    - Gunax 4y ago
      Well if it doesn't need to be paid for, we should definitely increase the payment. Why stop at $1500? Let's make it $3000. Or $30,000.
      - 4y ago

by Gunax 4y ago

Euphorbium 4y ago

How many trillions do you spend on war per year?

Gunax 4y ago
Less than one. If you think you made some grand point, consider that this can be determined in like 10 seconds of internet searching. And in fact you're just further proving my point that supporters have absolutely no idea about actual budgets. Eliminate all military, and you can increase the UBI from about 15k to 18k per year. Thanks for mentioning this though, as it's exactly the proof i needed that left wingers really dont know how a budget works.

opportune 4y ago

UBI can replace (at least partially) social security and related programs like SSI and unemployment insurance. It can maybe entirely replace SNAP and TANF. UBI would need higher taxes which for most people would likely end up being a wash or net gain. The nice thing about UBI being automatic and not means tested is it means anybody can lose their job or quit and immediately start receiving benefits. Rather than what we have now where it’s stressful and bureaucratic to get benefits, and once you are on benefits you are faced with a welfare cliff.

wizofaus 4y ago
Are we so certain it needs higher taxes? Have the trial schemes that have been run shown that?

wizofaus 4y ago

How can you prove that the government printing 3 trillion and handing out $15K to every adult citizen annually "doesn't make sense"? Assuming much of that will replace existing programs (e.g. the $1.2 trillion spent on social security, and a similar amount on health insurance), it's not necessarily massively more than what's currently spent.

Gunax 4y ago
Of course 'not making sense' is a bit subjective. The primary reason is that it's roughly 2.5x the cost. And given that social security is allready the largest expenditure and it's going to be unaffordable in it's current state, I am skeptical. If that alone is not convincing, consider that most social security recipients receive more than the proposed UBI. And as social security was income tested, you would effectively be transferring social security payments (which are ostensibly a promise/mandatory savings plan) from retirees who paid their dues, to everyone else. And consider that many benefits are that are covered now would not be available in UBI. What about people who need intensive nursing? That cannot be covered with their UBI. I actually like the general idea of replacing a patchwork of county/state/fed programs. I also like the idea of eliminating the welfare cliff. I just think the amounts being considered are so huge that it's just infeasible. Of course, you can propose a plan for how this will be paid for.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  Or I can propose that it doesn't need to be "paid for", because it's not asking the economy to produce any more goods and services than it already does. But sure, I'd accept there'd be medical care it couldn't realistically be expected to cover.
  - Gunax 4y ago
    Well if it doesn't need to be paid for, we should definitely increase the payment. Why stop at $1500? Let's make it $3000. Or $30,000.
    - 4y ago