4 ms·
Basic income might make it reasonable to eliminate TANF, some portion of SNAP, and some unemployment, but it doesn't eliminate the core need for Medicare and M
by gerbal 12y ago
Basic income might make it reasonable to eliminate TANF, some portion of SNAP, and some unemployment, but it doesn't eliminate the core need for Medicare and Medicaid.
In the basic income scenario outlined, the poor and the elderly will still need subsidized health insurance (assuming the current employer-provided health insurance model) or health coverage of some sort.
Social Security is also something of a dicey proposition. While it would be possible to use basic income to reduce social security benefits, it's role as a social insurance scheme to provide for the elderly couldn't be substituted in its entirety by simple basic income. Social security disability and death benefits would also need some more thought.
- awt 12y agoWhat about allowing people to store wealth in a non-depreciating, attainable, liquid asset (something besides USD or mutual funds or a home made out of plywood), and limiting liability for health providers?
- kasey_junk 12y ago"non-depreciating, attainable, liquid asset (something besides USD" What does that even mean?
- prostoalex 12y agoTIPS?
- kasey_junk 12y agoI guess, for some definition of liquid.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- zo1 12y agoAre you actually confused about the terms, or just trying to be facetious?
- kasey_junk 12y agoNo, I'm curious what financial instrument meets all those requirements.
- sitkack 12y agoGlitter sprinkles?
- kasey_junk 12y agoGlitter sprinkles are available where you are? Well aren't you just living the dream!
- dustcoin 12y ago>mutual funds Vanguard offers many low-fee mutual funds. Non-depreciating: The long-term return of stock indices and some bond indices beats inflation. Attainable: $1000-$3000 minimum to open an account Liquid: Funds can be bought or sold easily (with no fee), money is accessible via ACH. I hope you are not suggesting that gold is a better investment than a diverse portfolio of stocks and bonds.
- awt 12y agoGold ETFs are fubar. Gold itself is not very liquid. There are all sorts of prohibitive fees and tax penalties for taking money out of a 401k or a mutual fund before a certain date. The barrier to accessing the value represented by any mutual fund or 401k holdings is substantial. It took me months to move money from one dead 401k to another one I controlled. Imagine the amount of effort required to spend $50.00 of a 401k on groceries.
- zo1 12y agoThey're still based on or valued in USD, which is what the OP wanted to avoid. A lot of good those USD-valued mutual funds are going to do for you when they're worth peanuts due to a devaluation of the currency or its buying power. "I hope you are not suggesting that gold is a better investment than a diverse portfolio of stocks and bonds." There are a lot of people that believe a big government/market crash is coming. And they're absolutely desperate for ways to weather it without eating their own toes off.
- kasey_junk 12y ago"There are a lot of people that believe a big government/market crash is coming. And they're absolutely desperate for ways to weather it without eating their own toes off." Those people would be best served by buying ammunition.
- kasey_junk 12y ago"Liquid: Funds can be bought or sold easily (with no fee), money is accessible via ACH." Just as a heads up, most finance folks don't consider being able to buy/sell something easily as the only bar to liquidity. Volatility is also a major component. That is, if something can change value dramatically from day to day it can be considered "illiquid". So lots of people do not consider mutual funds "liquid".
- mikeash 12y agoYour comment seems to imply that there's a good store of wealth that fits these criteria, but that it's not allowed. What is it?
- awt 12y agoThere isn't right now. Someday Bitcoin might fill that role.
- kasey_junk 12y agoI'm not trying to be argumentative but lets assume Bitcoin becomes as liquid as USD (ie you can spend it on everything you can on USD without paying any higher transaction fees) what keeps the availability/depreciation matrix in check. That is, if it is a great value store why won't people horde it, thus decreasing availability. If it becomes readily available, why wouldn't it become worth less?
- awt 12y agoHmm, I'm not sure how to answer that. Hoarding increases the unit price relative to other assets, but doesn't make it any less liquid. Essentially infinitely small amounts of bitcoin can be transacted at any time.
- mikeash 12y agoI think one big problem is fact that there really can't be a long-term nonvolatile store of value. Economic activity is inherently continuous. There are a few goods that last more than a few years without maintenance or replacement. Economic output puts a hard limit on how quickly you can turn your value store into stuff you actually want. For an individual it doesn't make much difference, but when everybody tries to do it, it doesn't work. For an extreme thought experiment, consider if everyone puts half their income into a perfect store of value for a year, living off the other half, then the next year they live off the savings. Everyone would die of starvation the second year even though they supposedly have just as much value available as what sustained them the year before.
- akgerber 12y agoTIPS already exist, and you can buy them online easily: https://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/products/prod_tips_glance.htm https://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/products/prod_tips_glan... It doesn't magically fix human nature, which prioritizes immediate needs over very distant ones.
- awt 12y agoI suppose that would work if you trust the consumer price index. My own experience belies reported low inflation.
- kasey_junk 12y agoTIPS are not normally considered "liquid" (at least not as liquid as cash, which is the standard most people have) as they have minimum terms of ownership.
- bradleyjg 12y agoThe ACA exchange model is large risk pools with community rating. They implicitly cross subsidize the sick. So if the basic income is large enough to pay for an exchange policy without additional subsidies then you've replaced Medicare and Medicaid. However, a basic income of $12,000 is far away from that number at least for an individual. ACA subsidies the purchase of insurance at up to 400% of the poverty line. As for social security, politically I agree that a basic income that was lower than when many were expecting would be a non-starter. However I don't agree that it would fail a social insurance scheme. The social insurance aspect of social security is preventing elder poverty, a universal basic income does that by preventing all poverty. The regressive formula for calculating social security benefits was a canny political move (making it look more like a pension) but it isn't necessary to its social insurance function.
- Retric 12y agoI think subsidizing healthcare just for the elderly is a terrible idea. A fixed maximum annual benefit of say 30k would enable massive economies of scale, drive down costs, cover most issues, and not waste 100's of thousands of dollars on people who are beyond any known treatment and are effectively brain dead. Supplemental insurance for catastrophic problems would be optional as the vast majority of heath issues could be affordable. And vary few things are actually better treated by trowing lot's of money at them. Supplemental insurance even for the elderly would still be reasonably affordable by most people, but it remove the current model where hospitals maximize revenue by providing pointless and often cruel care for the dying. PS: I say this as someone that recently dealt with significant health issues. The ratio of actual costs vs delivered healthcare in the US is stupid and unsustainable. But, so is trying to write an unlimited check for any reasonably large group. Cap costs and you will see organizations operate within those limits. Edit: Yes, I realise this is one of those things you can't say, but that does not make it wrong. http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
- patmcc 12y agoMedicare and Medicaid should be eliminated in favour of some kind of universal healthcare, period. Basic income shouldn't come into the discussion.