4 ms·

Ok, you're guessing that current welfare recipients are uniformly imprudent and lack all virtue, rather than having some sizeable minority who are simply tempor

by khafra 2y ago

Ok, you're guessing that current welfare recipients are uniformly imprudent and lack all virtue, rather than having some sizeable minority who are simply temporarily down on their luck. Let's grant your assumption, for the sake of this argument. The biggest parts of the federal welfare budget by far are social security and medicare/medicaid. SS is simply a QBI, a UBI which is for qualified recipient instead of universal. So that's $1.4T saved, right there. Medicare/Medicaid together are another $1.4T, and replacing them isn't automatic--a UBI high enough to cover contemporary American medical costs would be huge. I must note, though, that these exorbitant medical costs are being collectively paid by Americans anyway; if we switched to literally any other system--from Robin Hanson's "buy life insurance and medical care from the same company" to EU-style public/private insurance--we'd save enough for UBI from that alone. The rest of welfare is comparitively penny-ante stuff--food stamps are only $120B, section 8 housing is $70B, etc. Even if we still had to provide Guaranteed Basic Food and Guaranteed Basic Housing in addition to UBI, it could still end up cheaper than our current system. And even if it didn't, I stand by my observation that the GDP keeps going up. If we genuinely can't afford a UBI at a GDP of 27T, what about at 30T? That increase covers the entirety of the current spending on both social security and medical aid. If not at 30T, what about at 40T or 50T?

ImJamal 2y ago
> Ok, you're guessing that current welfare recipients are uniformly imprudent and lack all virtue, I have done no such thing. I have never said that welfare receipts "uniformly" do anything. I am just saying that SOME will not use their money wisely and our choice is either to provide them with additional benefits or let them die. If we are going to continue to give some people the benefits we are trying to get rid of, they won't go away and more and more people will find ways to get the additional benefits. > rather than having some sizeable minority who are simply temporarily down on their luck. Let's grant your assumption, for the sake of this argument. The reason people need benefits is irrelevant to my argument. > The biggest parts of the federal welfare budget by far are social security and medicare/medicaid. SS is simply a QBI, a UBI which is for qualified recipient instead of universal. So that's $1.4T saved, right there. If we do not have SS there will be no SS tax which is what mostly funds SS. Unless you are advocating for retaining a tax for SS and not using it on SS, which is a dubious proposition. > Medicare/Medicaid together are another $1.4T, and replacing them isn't automatic--a UBI high enough to cover contemporary American medical costs would be huge. I must note, though, that these exorbitant medical costs are being collectively paid by Americans anyway; if we switched to literally any other system--from Robin Hanson's "buy life insurance and medical care from the same company" to EU-style public/private insurance--we'd save enough for UBI from that alone. You are saying the only way to make UBI work is to make UBI not cover everything that we are trying to replace with UBI. I mean, if that is your argument I can see how you can get the math can work... If you want to figure out if it will actually be cheaper you have to include everything covered currently with welfare. If you don't do that we really can't have any sort of actual comparison. Also, there are more reasons than just the way insurance is set up causing high costs that won't magically go away because of a change to an EU style system. > The rest of welfare is comparitively penny-ante stuff--food stamps are only $120B, section 8 housing is $70B, etc. Even if we still had to provide Guaranteed Basic Food and Guaranteed Basic Housing in addition to UBI, it could still end up cheaper than our current system. Interesting that you are now using the phrase "could still end up cheaper than our current system.". You seemed so positive before that it would and now you don't seem so certain. > And even if it didn't, I stand by my observation that the GDP keeps going up. If we genuinely can't afford a UBI at a GDP of 27T, what about at 30T? That increase covers the entirety of the current spending on both social security and medical aid. If not at 30T, what about at 40T or 50T? I don't think anybody is saying we can't afford UBI. The US could give everybody $1 and it would be UBI. The problem is providing enough money to replace the welfare system without messing up the costs of things or causing people to not work. I'm all for trying something, but I think that something should be a negative income tax rather than UBI to prevent any negative incentives that come with UBI.
- khafra 2y ago
  > I have done no such thing. I have never said that welfare receipts "uniformly" do anything. I am just saying that SOME will not use their money wisely and our choice is either to provide them with additional benefits or let them die. > If we are going to continue to give some people the benefits we are trying to get rid of, they won't go away and more and more people will find ways to get the additional benefits. Yes, means-testing is the enemy, and reducing the administrative burden of welfare is most of the cost savings that UBI offers. Still, even if we can't reform American healthcare at all, reducing means testing to just medical care would be huge. After all, you're now testing for the severity and expense of the medical condition itself, not for income or assets--and to falsify that, a welfare recipient would need an MD to commit blatant fraud. > Interesting that you are now using the phrase "could still end up cheaper than our current system.". You seemed so positive before that it would and now you don't seem so certain. You may be confusing me with other UBI advocates. I never claimed UBI would be cheaper than the current system. > I'm all for trying something, but I think that something should be a negative income tax rather than UBI to prevent any negative incentives that come with UBI. Have you looked at the incentives described by, say, the Adam Smith institute? They describe a negative income tax as incentivizing more participation in the labor market by poor people, due to the lower marginal tax rate: https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/nit-or-ubi-that-is-the-economic-question https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/nit-or-ubi-that-is-the-econom...

by khafra 2y ago

ImJamal 2y ago

> Ok, you're guessing that current welfare recipients are uniformly imprudent and lack all virtue, I have done no such thing. I have never said that welfare receipts "uniformly" do anything. I am just saying that SOME will not use their money wisely and our choice is either to provide them with additional benefits or let them die. If we are going to continue to give some people the benefits we are trying to get rid of, they won't go away and more and more people will find ways to get the additional benefits. > rather than having some sizeable minority who are simply temporarily down on their luck. Let's grant your assumption, for the sake of this argument. The reason people need benefits is irrelevant to my argument. > The biggest parts of the federal welfare budget by far are social security and medicare/medicaid. SS is simply a QBI, a UBI which is for qualified recipient instead of universal. So that's $1.4T saved, right there. If we do not have SS there will be no SS tax which is what mostly funds SS. Unless you are advocating for retaining a tax for SS and not using it on SS, which is a dubious proposition. > Medicare/Medicaid together are another $1.4T, and replacing them isn't automatic--a UBI high enough to cover contemporary American medical costs would be huge. I must note, though, that these exorbitant medical costs are being collectively paid by Americans anyway; if we switched to literally any other system--from Robin Hanson's "buy life insurance and medical care from the same company" to EU-style public/private insurance--we'd save enough for UBI from that alone. You are saying the only way to make UBI work is to make UBI not cover everything that we are trying to replace with UBI. I mean, if that is your argument I can see how you can get the math can work... If you want to figure out if it will actually be cheaper you have to include everything covered currently with welfare. If you don't do that we really can't have any sort of actual comparison. Also, there are more reasons than just the way insurance is set up causing high costs that won't magically go away because of a change to an EU style system. > The rest of welfare is comparitively penny-ante stuff--food stamps are only $120B, section 8 housing is $70B, etc. Even if we still had to provide Guaranteed Basic Food and Guaranteed Basic Housing in addition to UBI, it could still end up cheaper than our current system. Interesting that you are now using the phrase "could still end up cheaper than our current system.". You seemed so positive before that it would and now you don't seem so certain. > And even if it didn't, I stand by my observation that the GDP keeps going up. If we genuinely can't afford a UBI at a GDP of 27T, what about at 30T? That increase covers the entirety of the current spending on both social security and medical aid. If not at 30T, what about at 40T or 50T? I don't think anybody is saying we can't afford UBI. The US could give everybody $1 and it would be UBI. The problem is providing enough money to replace the welfare system without messing up the costs of things or causing people to not work. I'm all for trying something, but I think that something should be a negative income tax rather than UBI to prevent any negative incentives that come with UBI.

khafra 2y ago
> I have done no such thing. I have never said that welfare receipts "uniformly" do anything. I am just saying that SOME will not use their money wisely and our choice is either to provide them with additional benefits or let them die. > If we are going to continue to give some people the benefits we are trying to get rid of, they won't go away and more and more people will find ways to get the additional benefits. Yes, means-testing is the enemy, and reducing the administrative burden of welfare is most of the cost savings that UBI offers. Still, even if we can't reform American healthcare at all, reducing means testing to just medical care would be huge. After all, you're now testing for the severity and expense of the medical condition itself, not for income or assets--and to falsify that, a welfare recipient would need an MD to commit blatant fraud. > Interesting that you are now using the phrase "could still end up cheaper than our current system.". You seemed so positive before that it would and now you don't seem so certain. You may be confusing me with other UBI advocates. I never claimed UBI would be cheaper than the current system. > I'm all for trying something, but I think that something should be a negative income tax rather than UBI to prevent any negative incentives that come with UBI. Have you looked at the incentives described by, say, the Adam Smith institute? They describe a negative income tax as incentivizing more participation in the labor market by poor people, due to the lower marginal tax rate: https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/nit-or-ubi-that-is-the-economic-question https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/nit-or-ubi-that-is-the-econom...