3 ms·

A great idea in theory but once there’s a distinction it opens an opportunity for politicians to endlessly fight over who gets it. You also get the instinct to

A great idea in theory but once there’s a distinction it opens an opportunity for politicians to endlessly fight over who gets it. You also get the instinct to “parent” the poor and limit what they can buy. Giving it to everyone isn’t the best idea but it’s the best way to keep politicians out of the kitchen. (And I say this as someone who’s against the idea. But I do think the “universal” is the best idea within a bad idea.)

snarf21 3y ago
That is the problem today, but we could also just have it be based on filed income and get rid of the bureaucracy instead. The issue is that some political parties are actively against helping the poor. The more practical idea is a universal poor stipend. The problem with UBI is that it would literally require everyone above income X to pay and extra $500/month in taxes just so they could receive a "free" $500/month in taxes.
- RhysU 3y ago
  If it is based on filed income then people will file less income or not work. Incentivizing lying or sloth is clearly bad.
mattchew 3y ago
If you can't imagine how politicians could endlessly fight over a UBI you haven't tried hard enough.
lo_zamoyski 3y ago
Traditionally, in the West, the Church ran charities to help the poor. Tithing and charitable giving contributed to the coffers managed by, say, local monasteries. Communities also helped each other out on an as-needed basis, In both cases, help was local and this meant insight into the particular situation of each person who needed it (hence the superiority of the principle of subsidiarity). In both cases, no politicians were involved. In the West, with the kicking out of the Church from the public sphere and the rise of hyperindividualism, many of the good works performed by the Church and the community was arrogated by the State. The State is now the uncontested institution, it is now the Church. Now these things become subject to and embroiled in all sorts considerations unrelated to the basic problem of dealing with someone in need. UBI entrenches the very isolating hyperindividualism that ruined the family and destroyed the resulting communities.

snarf21 3y ago

That is the problem today, but we could also just have it be based on filed income and get rid of the bureaucracy instead. The issue is that some political parties are actively against helping the poor. The more practical idea is a universal poor stipend. The problem with UBI is that it would literally require everyone above income X to pay and extra $500/month in taxes just so they could receive a "free" $500/month in taxes.

RhysU 3y ago
If it is based on filed income then people will file less income or not work. Incentivizing lying or sloth is clearly bad.

mattchew 3y ago

If you can't imagine how politicians could endlessly fight over a UBI you haven't tried hard enough.

lo_zamoyski 3y ago

Traditionally, in the West, the Church ran charities to help the poor. Tithing and charitable giving contributed to the coffers managed by, say, local monasteries. Communities also helped each other out on an as-needed basis, In both cases, help was local and this meant insight into the particular situation of each person who needed it (hence the superiority of the principle of subsidiarity). In both cases, no politicians were involved. In the West, with the kicking out of the Church from the public sphere and the rise of hyperindividualism, many of the good works performed by the Church and the community was arrogated by the State. The State is now the uncontested institution, it is now the Church. Now these things become subject to and embroiled in all sorts considerations unrelated to the basic problem of dealing with someone in need. UBI entrenches the very isolating hyperindividualism that ruined the family and destroyed the resulting communities.