4 ms·

It saves a lot of work and therefore money. But there’s another layer to consider for many people. Someone getting benefits who doesn’t deserve it is less impor

It saves a lot of work and therefore money. But there’s another layer to consider for many people. Someone getting benefits who doesn’t deserve it is less important than someone who needs help not getting it. You can’t scam a system that’s free to everybody, and there’s no incentive to.

andy99 1y ago
Yes I agree and right now the system seems like the opposite: better ten deserving people go without than one undeserving person gets an extra penny, even if we have to pay way more in bureaucracy costs adjudicate everything.
bell-cot 1y ago
> You can’t scam a system that’s free to everybody, and there’s no incentive to. Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the scam of collecting benefits via fake or stolen identities?
- schwartzworld 1y ago
  A big part of why UBI isn't really viewed as a great option by actual socialists. I'd rather see us literally just give people food, housing and medicine without money being involved, but for some reason that's a tough sell to most people.
  - bell-cot 1y ago
    > I'd rather see us literally just give... Yet even in "pure capitalism" America, certain versions of all those things are widely tolerated, if not seen as basic rights. Food banks, soup kitchens, subsidized school lunches, and other free-ish food. Very generous tax treatment (both property taxes and mortgage interest) for houses. Hospitals required to give free care to the indigent. In many ways, I'd say the socialists mostly need to work on their branding and spin.
    - cindyllm 1y ago
      [dead]
    - vacuity 1y ago
      > In many ways, I'd say the socialists mostly need to work on their branding and spin. Don't they always? As much as I despise the modern Republican party and Trump in particular, I think they're much better at messaging and group consensus. Considering Bernie Sanders' electoral performance, there were (are?) definitely opportunities.
bluGill 1y ago
People getting money who need it generally have other problems and so you need to get them in touch with the other help they need. Stopping scams of the system is a bonus, but the real value is (or should be!) evaluating everyone getting help to ensure they are getting the other care they need. Many people who need money are unable to handle money and so we still need programs to find them and ensure they are not getting scammed, or wasting their money (that is not saving enough to eat at the end of the month despite getting enough) If your only concern is people who are scamming the system, UBI ensures they are not scamming by definition. (we can debate if that is a good solution or not - a very different topic). However the main concern should be people who need help, and a large number of them money is a secondary need to their main problem.
- finghin 1y ago
  > [for] a large number of them money is a secondary need to their main problem. This is true, but there is plenty of evidence in the disability sphere that it's more cost-effective to give people with disabilities money up front because they can spend it on their own needs better than government programmes. Think of it like a business that wants to make sure WFH is comfortable for its employees. Many companies now just give a grant up front for monitors, chairs, etc. If they don't do that they need someone to admin/spreadsheet what monitor is best value for the company, what chairs, and investigate perhaps all the accessibility needs that might need to become a matter of policy for the firm. Updates to employee contracts. List goes on. And at the end, people will still complain because they think the company chose the wrong chair for them.
  - bluGill 1y ago
    Which disability? There are number where they cannot manage their own life and so need intervention. So we need to examine everyone anyway to ensure those who can't get management done for them. Those who are more able of course don't need us to do it - but they are also borderline able to support themselves without help.
this_user 1y ago
Sure, just handing out money to everyone is easy. The hard part is finding enough money to do it.
- hrimfaxi 1y ago
  Not only that, but ensuring that someone else did not claim the money owed to another. Look at how rampant income tax return fraud is in the US, and that's just bad actors claiming tax refunds on the behalf of others.
- oompydoompy74 1y ago
  There is always enough money to build bombs, but never enough money to feed and house everyone. It’s almost like governments can just create money out of nowhere to do whatever they want.
- schwartzworld 1y ago
  We spend $850B on defense, and nobody ever asks where the money to do it comes from. It's only once you start talking about feeding people that everybody is concerned with the economics.
  - pstuart 1y ago
    Exactly this! National defense is a sovereign need but it should not be above scrutiny for how the money is spent. Add to this the fact that the US Military is effectively a jobs program and there's little to no domestic return on that investment. This subject gets artfully deflected by "We love our troops!" nonsense but if anybody is complaining about government spending they should be willing to look at all facets of it regardless of which side of the aisle they're on.
    - phil21 1y ago
      Far from above scrutiny, the military budget has been the go-to talking point and area for real actual cuts my entire adult life. While it's share of the national budget has gone down, spending has only increased in other areas to more than compensate for it. I can't really say the increased spending on social services has resulted in great gains for societal health, education outcomes, or really anything. Not everything can be explained by budget percentages, but on the face of it redirecting military spending to other areas has not resulted in many large wins for society as a whole so far. It likely didn't have to be this way, but we apparently are really bad at deploying tax dollars into socially meaningful infrastructure. That and there are larger factors at play.
eikenberry 1y ago
> You can’t scam a system that’s free to everybody, and there’s no incentive to. One obvious scam in this case would be to convince the system you are more than one person. I think you underestimate people's greed and inventiveness.

andy99 1y ago

Yes I agree and right now the system seems like the opposite: better ten deserving people go without than one undeserving person gets an extra penny, even if we have to pay way more in bureaucracy costs adjudicate everything.

bell-cot 1y ago

> You can’t scam a system that’s free to everybody, and there’s no incentive to. Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the scam of collecting benefits via fake or stolen identities?

schwartzworld 1y ago
A big part of why UBI isn't really viewed as a great option by actual socialists. I'd rather see us literally just give people food, housing and medicine without money being involved, but for some reason that's a tough sell to most people.
- bell-cot 1y ago
  > I'd rather see us literally just give... Yet even in "pure capitalism" America, certain versions of all those things are widely tolerated, if not seen as basic rights. Food banks, soup kitchens, subsidized school lunches, and other free-ish food. Very generous tax treatment (both property taxes and mortgage interest) for houses. Hospitals required to give free care to the indigent. In many ways, I'd say the socialists mostly need to work on their branding and spin.
  - cindyllm 1y ago
    [dead]
  - vacuity 1y ago
    > In many ways, I'd say the socialists mostly need to work on their branding and spin. Don't they always? As much as I despise the modern Republican party and Trump in particular, I think they're much better at messaging and group consensus. Considering Bernie Sanders' electoral performance, there were (are?) definitely opportunities.

bluGill 1y ago

People getting money who need it generally have other problems and so you need to get them in touch with the other help they need. Stopping scams of the system is a bonus, but the real value is (or should be!) evaluating everyone getting help to ensure they are getting the other care they need. Many people who need money are unable to handle money and so we still need programs to find them and ensure they are not getting scammed, or wasting their money (that is not saving enough to eat at the end of the month despite getting enough) If your only concern is people who are scamming the system, UBI ensures they are not scamming by definition. (we can debate if that is a good solution or not - a very different topic). However the main concern should be people who need help, and a large number of them money is a secondary need to their main problem.

finghin 1y ago
> [for] a large number of them money is a secondary need to their main problem. This is true, but there is plenty of evidence in the disability sphere that it's more cost-effective to give people with disabilities money up front because they can spend it on their own needs better than government programmes. Think of it like a business that wants to make sure WFH is comfortable for its employees. Many companies now just give a grant up front for monitors, chairs, etc. If they don't do that they need someone to admin/spreadsheet what monitor is best value for the company, what chairs, and investigate perhaps all the accessibility needs that might need to become a matter of policy for the firm. Updates to employee contracts. List goes on. And at the end, people will still complain because they think the company chose the wrong chair for them.
- bluGill 1y ago
  Which disability? There are number where they cannot manage their own life and so need intervention. So we need to examine everyone anyway to ensure those who can't get management done for them. Those who are more able of course don't need us to do it - but they are also borderline able to support themselves without help.

this_user 1y ago

Sure, just handing out money to everyone is easy. The hard part is finding enough money to do it.

hrimfaxi 1y ago
Not only that, but ensuring that someone else did not claim the money owed to another. Look at how rampant income tax return fraud is in the US, and that's just bad actors claiming tax refunds on the behalf of others.
oompydoompy74 1y ago
There is always enough money to build bombs, but never enough money to feed and house everyone. It’s almost like governments can just create money out of nowhere to do whatever they want.
schwartzworld 1y ago
We spend $850B on defense, and nobody ever asks where the money to do it comes from. It's only once you start talking about feeding people that everybody is concerned with the economics.
- pstuart 1y ago
  Exactly this! National defense is a sovereign need but it should not be above scrutiny for how the money is spent. Add to this the fact that the US Military is effectively a jobs program and there's little to no domestic return on that investment. This subject gets artfully deflected by "We love our troops!" nonsense but if anybody is complaining about government spending they should be willing to look at all facets of it regardless of which side of the aisle they're on.
  - phil21 1y ago
    Far from above scrutiny, the military budget has been the go-to talking point and area for real actual cuts my entire adult life. While it's share of the national budget has gone down, spending has only increased in other areas to more than compensate for it. I can't really say the increased spending on social services has resulted in great gains for societal health, education outcomes, or really anything. Not everything can be explained by budget percentages, but on the face of it redirecting military spending to other areas has not resulted in many large wins for society as a whole so far. It likely didn't have to be this way, but we apparently are really bad at deploying tax dollars into socially meaningful infrastructure. That and there are larger factors at play.

eikenberry 1y ago

> You can’t scam a system that’s free to everybody, and there’s no incentive to. One obvious scam in this case would be to convince the system you are more than one person. I think you underestimate people's greed and inventiveness.