3 ms·

The $600bn spent on "income security" excludes social security, no? That's a huge chunk of change, and a basic income could in effect replace the need for it.

The $600bn spent on "income security" excludes social security, no? That's a huge chunk of change, and a basic income could in effect replace the need for it. That said, any sort of transition would be difficult to implement (and political kryptonite.)

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
philwelch 13y ago
You still end up with about a $2000bn net cost even after taking social security into account.
scarmig 13y ago
It definitely does exclude Social Security, which as a program amounts to ~$750 billion a year. And Medicare and Medicaid, which amount to another $600 or $700 billion. Combine them and the $600 billion on income security, and you get about $2 trillion, which is enough to fund a huge chunk of it. I don't understand the how McArdle thinks that $12,000 per year is too austere for most people to live comfortably on and simultaneously decries how it will make many people drop out of the workforce. She should address what (many) advocates of it want. Political concerns are, of course, another question.
- philwelch 13y ago
  Basic income can't be a drop-in replacement for federal health care programs, because to get equivalent care you'd either need considerably more basic income or some other mechanism for providing health care. The most generous assumption from an accounting perspective is probably that the US adopts, wholesale, the Canadian medical system with equivalent per-capita costs borne by the federal government.
  - scarmig 13y ago
    Why? People know best how to spend their money. The government shouldn't effectively force people to consume healthcare. Especially when there's evidence out there that programs like Medicaid provide no net healthcare benefit to recipients. Health outcomes might even improve, if the money that would be going to Medicaid instead goes to people spending more time on self improvement and health. ETA: That said, feasibility is always the question. Given that, I'd be happy as a duck to make the basic income only $8,000 a year or whatever. Then again, I'm one of the austere basic income advocates--I'm on the fence about the Swiss proposal because I think it's far, far too generous, even considering the higher COL there.
    - philwelch 13y ago
      Don't be foolish. If letting people die in the streets when they got cancer was a viable option, letting people die in the streets of starvation would be too and you'd have no rationale for a basic income. Private health insurance is much more expensive per-capita than Medicare and Medicaid and you would have to increase people's basic income to be able to afford it. Except that wouldn't work for people with preexisting conditions--they would be left to die in the streets. You'd have to regulate health insurance companies to accept everyone, but then no one would buy health insurance until they were already sick, at which point everyone has to buy health insurance, at which point you might as well implement the Canadian system because that's already less costly, per capita, to the federal government alone, than Medicare and Medicaid are.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
- cpleppert 13y ago
  The reason she seemed to exclude Social Security is that there is no way to have a Basic Income replace Social Security without having a massive decrease in social security checks. You essentially cut them in half. Social Security doesn't work if a check is $600 a month. It won't prevent poverty.
- hannibalhorn 13y ago
  So ignoring Medicare / Medicaid / health insurance in general, the current expenditures on social security / unemployment / welfare add up to ~$1.4 trillion, which (given the 235 million adults stated in the article) is ~$500/month per citizen. I could easily live alone on that in parts of the country. Given that people surviving on said basic income could (and should!) have roommates or spouses, it's even more than necessary.
cpleppert 13y ago
Social Security and Medicare are about 1.3 trillion a year and any system that replaced Social Security and Medicare will be a system that is much less generous to the elderly. A basic income will essentially reduce the monthly check from 1100 to about 670 with no health benefits at all. There is no way to get around the fact that this will cause a massive increase in elderly poverty.
- hannibalhorn 13y ago
  I live where $10/day is considered a decent wage, so $670/month sounds pretty good. If one spends their working years paying for a house and saving for discretionary expenses, with the knowledge that food and utilities will be covered by the basic income, it'd be much more than adequate. The real problem is that many of the more adventurous types would just go live in India! Health care is a politically charged issue, so I'd say replace social security but leave medicare out of it. Obviously something fair would have to be worked out for people who have already paid into the system with an expectation of benefits much higher than $500/month..

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

philwelch 13y ago

You still end up with about a $2000bn net cost even after taking social security into account.

scarmig 13y ago

It definitely does exclude Social Security, which as a program amounts to ~$750 billion a year. And Medicare and Medicaid, which amount to another $600 or $700 billion. Combine them and the $600 billion on income security, and you get about $2 trillion, which is enough to fund a huge chunk of it. I don't understand the how McArdle thinks that $12,000 per year is too austere for most people to live comfortably on and simultaneously decries how it will make many people drop out of the workforce. She should address what (many) advocates of it want. Political concerns are, of course, another question.

philwelch 13y ago
Basic income can't be a drop-in replacement for federal health care programs, because to get equivalent care you'd either need considerably more basic income or some other mechanism for providing health care. The most generous assumption from an accounting perspective is probably that the US adopts, wholesale, the Canadian medical system with equivalent per-capita costs borne by the federal government.
- scarmig 13y ago
  Why? People know best how to spend their money. The government shouldn't effectively force people to consume healthcare. Especially when there's evidence out there that programs like Medicaid provide no net healthcare benefit to recipients. Health outcomes might even improve, if the money that would be going to Medicaid instead goes to people spending more time on self improvement and health. ETA: That said, feasibility is always the question. Given that, I'd be happy as a duck to make the basic income only $8,000 a year or whatever. Then again, I'm one of the austere basic income advocates--I'm on the fence about the Swiss proposal because I think it's far, far too generous, even considering the higher COL there.
  - philwelch 13y ago
    Don't be foolish. If letting people die in the streets when they got cancer was a viable option, letting people die in the streets of starvation would be too and you'd have no rationale for a basic income. Private health insurance is much more expensive per-capita than Medicare and Medicaid and you would have to increase people's basic income to be able to afford it. Except that wouldn't work for people with preexisting conditions--they would be left to die in the streets. You'd have to regulate health insurance companies to accept everyone, but then no one would buy health insurance until they were already sick, at which point everyone has to buy health insurance, at which point you might as well implement the Canadian system because that's already less costly, per capita, to the federal government alone, than Medicare and Medicaid are.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
cpleppert 13y ago
The reason she seemed to exclude Social Security is that there is no way to have a Basic Income replace Social Security without having a massive decrease in social security checks. You essentially cut them in half. Social Security doesn't work if a check is $600 a month. It won't prevent poverty.
hannibalhorn 13y ago
So ignoring Medicare / Medicaid / health insurance in general, the current expenditures on social security / unemployment / welfare add up to ~$1.4 trillion, which (given the 235 million adults stated in the article) is ~$500/month per citizen. I could easily live alone on that in parts of the country. Given that people surviving on said basic income could (and should!) have roommates or spouses, it's even more than necessary.

cpleppert 13y ago

Social Security and Medicare are about 1.3 trillion a year and any system that replaced Social Security and Medicare will be a system that is much less generous to the elderly. A basic income will essentially reduce the monthly check from 1100 to about 670 with no health benefits at all. There is no way to get around the fact that this will cause a massive increase in elderly poverty.

hannibalhorn 13y ago
I live where $10/day is considered a decent wage, so $670/month sounds pretty good. If one spends their working years paying for a house and saving for discretionary expenses, with the knowledge that food and utilities will be covered by the basic income, it'd be much more than adequate. The real problem is that many of the more adventurous types would just go live in India! Health care is a politically charged issue, so I'd say replace social security but leave medicare out of it. Obviously something fair would have to be worked out for people who have already paid into the system with an expectation of benefits much higher than $500/month..