3 ms·
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
by 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 agoOr 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 agoWell 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.
- wizofaus 4y agoI thought we started with $15K? 30K you could do, but if it wasn't accompanied by other measures to control the amount of currency in circulation (vs just printing the extra money), I'd accept it would likely significantly devalue the currency, meaning that $30K wouldn't be able to buy as much. Most likely you're right that whatever the amount is, the taxation system would need reforming too, I'm just noting that it doesn't necessarily require increasing the total tax take (or size of government spending).