Thread Rating:

Poll

6 votes (21.42%)
1 vote (3.57%)
9 votes (32.14%)
12 votes (42.85%)

28 members have voted

TomG
TomG
Joined: Sep 26, 2010
  • Threads: 16
  • Posts: 2373
May 31st, 2018 at 10:11:54 AM permalink
Quote: Romes

This would never work because as soon as everyone in the country received an extra $1500 per month, the base cost of living everywhere would just go up another $1500 per month.



If it was done without increasing spending (as it should be), then it would simply mean the government is using its resources to give us cash benefits, instead of non-cash benefits. That would not effect the cost of living.
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1403
  • Posts: 23731
May 31st, 2018 at 10:30:10 AM permalink
I am open to learning more about it, but with what little I know, I strongly support it, largely to get rid of other welfare programs and give everyone an incentive to work.

Out of college I was a claims adjuster for Social Security and it was an enormous amount of work to process a disability case through the system. It took at least six months and chock full bad of decisions both ways -- denying the truly disabled and awarding people faking a disability, because they didn't want to work. Once people are on, there are rules to allow a return to work without benefits being cut -- temporarily. Once the work has lasted more than x months (and I forget what x is) you are deemed well enough to work and your benefits, as well as medicare, end. Many people don't try to return to work because they would lose medicare, but that is getting off on a tangent.

I'm sure it would be enormously expensive at first glance but the cost could be recouped by the elimination of every welfare program as well as increase in taxes, such that mid-income people would come out basically even between the UBI and the tax increase.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
gamerfreak
gamerfreak
Joined: Dec 28, 2014
  • Threads: 51
  • Posts: 3386
May 31st, 2018 at 10:37:26 AM permalink
Many economists smarter than myself have said that something akin to universal basic income will become absolutely necessary as automation continues to advance and replace many jobs that exist today. Im talking long term, 30-50 years+ down the road.

Id be in favor of universal basic income today if it replaced most or all federal assistance programs in place today. It would be cheaper just to do it this way with the MASSIVE administrative overhead that would be saved by just cutting every US adult citizen a $1500 check each month.
darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 266
  • Posts: 9074
May 31st, 2018 at 10:38:04 AM permalink
Quote: troopscott

and you are wrong my fat ass cousin who is older than me has not worked since she dropped her second illegitimate kid at 22 lives in a 5 bedroom house (for her and her 7 illegitimate kids) and pays like $100. She gets plenty of food stamps and a big check every month



Im certain there are people who get around the requirements

Does she report she works when she doesnt?

There are ways to skirt the laws. Those can be fixed. I have no problem with that
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
jml24
jml24
Joined: Feb 28, 2011
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 286
May 31st, 2018 at 10:45:42 AM permalink
My opinion is close to the Wizard but I would like to see more numbers. There are a vast number of people employed by the government to prevent cheating on the existing welfare programs. All those positions could be eliminated. All these programs introduce distortion into the economy such as the example cited where someone has a disincentive to return to work for fear of losing disability benefits. IMO a good economic principle is that government distortions to the economy should be as simple and transparent as possible. If the goal is to prevent people from living in poverty there is no solution simpler and more transparent than just giving money to everyone. There could be a phase out above a certain income level but adjusting the tax brackets would have the same effect and would be simpler to administer because the system for distributing the money would not need to know about the recipient's income.

I am paraphrasing something I have heard before but the current system exists because we as a society place a greater importance on preventing someone from getting help they don't "deserve" than we place on helping people that truly need it. We are willing to let some people starve or live on the streets for fear they might be gaming the system somehow if we help them. At this point in my life I have learned that the concept of "fairness" isn't really a thing. My position in life is the result of a huge number of factors, some are advantages I was born with, some I worked for, and some were just dumb luck. Fairness doesn't even enter into it.
billryan
billryan 
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 207
  • Posts: 12425
May 31st, 2018 at 10:48:09 AM permalink
You almost sound jealous. Surely you wouldn't want to trade places with her, would you?
The difference between fiction and reality is that fiction is supposed to make sense.
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1403
  • Posts: 23731
May 31st, 2018 at 11:05:45 AM permalink
Quote: jml24

There could be a phase out above a certain income level but adjusting the tax brackets would have the same effect and would be simpler to administer because the system for distributing the money would not need to know about the recipient's income.



I think this would be one of our few points of departure. The way I would do it, even Mark Zuckerberg would get paid. If you phase it out by income level, you incentivize* people to work less or falsely report income. Vegas is full of $500/hr prostitutes who are are also on welfare. Why not be, free money and health care for them, as they don't report income anyway. My point being that the current system punishes honest taxpayers and rewards the cheats. Give everyone the same amount and you eliminate the moral hazards.

* Why does my spell checker not like that spelling?
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
billryan
billryan 
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 207
  • Posts: 12425
May 31st, 2018 at 11:47:39 AM permalink
Quote: Wizard

I think this would be one of our few points of departure. The way I would do it, even Mark Zuckerberg would get paid. If you phase it out by income level, you incentivize* people to work less or falsely report income. Vegas is full of $500/hr prostitutes who are are also on welfare. Why not be, free money and health care for them, as they don't report income anyway. My point being that the current system punishes honest taxpayers and rewards the cheats. Give everyone the same amount and you eliminate the moral hazards.

* Why does my spell checker not like that spelling?



I don't think the current system punishes honest taxpayers. It might punish lazy uninformed people but the tax code is easy to manipulate. Intentionally so. Unfortunately, poor people don't have many thousand dollar an hour lobbyists writing tax codes.
The difference between fiction and reality is that fiction is supposed to make sense.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman 
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 229
  • Posts: 12671
May 31st, 2018 at 11:58:35 AM permalink
Quote: TomG

Strongly support this. In my mind we could introduce it at $600 per month. Either stay there with only cost of living increases, or slowly increase it to the $1,500 AZD brought up.



Just as an aside as someone else quoted it, I am not saying $1,500 is a good number or even a suggested number. I just picked that because it is FT on the $15MW number some are fighting for. Just saying because I saw it at least twice including this post.

CONTINUE DISCUSSIG
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
AZDuffman
AZDuffman 
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 229
  • Posts: 12671
May 31st, 2018 at 12:05:03 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

I think this would be one of our few points of departure. The way I would do it, even Mark Zuckerberg would get paid.



There was an old idea in IIRC the Ford Admin. Morton Downey, Jr. put it in his book as if it were his. Making up numbers, everyone would get $10,000. Your tax rate between say $80-90,000 would be 100%, paying back the $10,000. Then your rate would actually fall, encouraging you to work harder.

Before anyone screams about a "bubble rate" well we had one in the late 1980s.

Not saying this is a *good* way to not have the high earners get UBA, just saying it is *a* way to not have it happen.

FWIW I am against UBI, but if we had it then I would say every adult gets it, same as SS, except earnings would not matter like SS contributions do.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others

  • Jump to: