Poll

What is your opinion on UBI based on political leanings?

Economically liberal/in favor of UBI
53 (37.3%)
Economically conservative or libertarian/in favor of UBI
42 (29.6%)
Economically liberal/not in favor of UBI
11 (7.7%)
Economically conservative or libertarian/not in favor of UBI
32 (22.5%)
Other (post below)
4 (2.8%)

Total Members Voted: 142

Author Topic: Can We Achieve Universal FI?  (Read 20070 times)

Financial.Velociraptor

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 975
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Houston TX
  • Devour your prey raptors!
    • Financial Velociraptor
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #100 on: December 13, 2016, 04:24:33 PM »
Is a UBI scheme not inflationary?  Serious question.

If it is financed by debt, it is inflationary.  If it is financed by taxes it is neutral.
Achieve Financial Escape Velocity - Financial Velociraptor

kayvent

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 520
  • Location: Canada
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #101 on: December 13, 2016, 06:59:15 PM »
Is a UBI scheme not inflationary?  Serious question.

As a fiscally conservative individual, I'd say no. We already have a distorted form of Guaranteed Minimum Income (GMI) through the patchwork of social programs. If you are dirt poor in the US or Canada, you're healthcare is provided for you, you'd qualify for a variety of welfare programs, and the cost of retraining, mental health therapy, etc.... is covered if you can navigate through the maze. I'm not saying that is a glamorous outcome but in our developed nations, we functionally have a floor.

Being a pragmatist, I understand that we need (have) a floor (and there is no way it is going away soon). I'm pro-UBI because GMI has so many holes that tens of thousands of our countrymen fall through them AND GMI has some perverse incentives like the occasional effective tax rate over 100% when you include benefit clawbacks.

UBI is a replacement for a multitude of social programs, not an additional program to add to the system. This is what would keep it from being (too) inflationary.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2016, 07:58:46 PM by kayvent »

Prairie Stash

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #102 on: December 14, 2016, 09:03:57 AM »
Didn't Lord Keynes postulate that this would happen like what 70 years ago?

I've brought this point up many times in similar threads before.  For this to work, people have to consume and live like their grandparents (or great-grand for you young'ens) did. That means one household car, kids sharing rooms & one household bathroom, no extravagant all-inclusive vacations at peak times of year, maybe growing some of your own food, etc...  The horrors!
So a MMM lifestyle? ;)

In Canada we already have forms of UBI through welfare and other programs. Its a rough life so most of us choose to spend our idle time trying for something better.

When I retire I'll dig up all my time sheets and figure out how may hours total I worked, its not that hard to do. I would estimate that it should be 30,000 paid hours (not including school). Given that I expect to live to 75+ and started working at 13 Keynes would say I had a 60 year potential for working (yikes). That should average out to 500 hours/year or about 10 hours/week. Some people like MMM have me beat, he probably worked 24000 hours total (being generous with his teenage employment hours); ArebelSpy is likely at 22,000 (not sure how many hours he still works).

The point is people already have the option of working less in lots of cases, I would guess 10-20% of the population have the potential. Most of us here will work les than an average of 15 hours/week, the way the system is structured forces a front end loading of hours to get started; in Keynesian theory it never really explained how a person would start from nothing (no house, dishes, food in the pantry) and be self sufficient the first year by only working 500 hours. Its easy to do after you've accumulated material possessions like boots and winter jackets, pretty hard when starting out.

If we do want UBI will there be some sort of factor to help younger people accumulate basics (pots, pans, work clothes for the 4 hour shift etc.) that trails off with age?

Drifterrider

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1122
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #103 on: December 19, 2016, 12:46:53 PM »
Where is all that free money coming from?

I've read one article regarding a Scandinavian country where they were complete and accurate when they said "universal basic income will replace all other types of welfare.

So, who is going to do the work to provide the free money?  I'm not.  Government doesn't generate money (although sometimes they print it), people do.

So, if we all stop working and take that "free money", when does it run out?  Things are worth what one is willing to give to get.  If it is "free" it is worth what you paid.

Watchmaker

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 154
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #104 on: December 19, 2016, 02:20:19 PM »
If robots become engineers, you would still need humans to take care of the engineering robots.

You would still need some humans to take care of the engineering robots, but not nearly as many as you did before.  If you need 100 workers right now to make a widget, automation might reduce that to 20 workers and 4 engineers.  Fine for the 20 still employed.  Great for the 4 new engineers.  What about the other 76?  I suggest we should care about them because they are people, but if you want to look only at the economics, who is going to buy widgets if 76% of people have no income?

Find a job that robots can't do, or line up for welfare benefits.

Welfare benefits for a big chunk of the population?  Sounds a lot like UBI.


kayvent

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 520
  • Location: Canada
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #105 on: December 19, 2016, 02:35:14 PM »
If everyone got $12k per year from the government, artificial intelligence is invented, and robots perform all manual labor jobs, then over time more people will transition into engineering jobs to replace the manual labor jobs, as someone will need to take care of the robots, and there would be LOTS of engineering jobs due to the complexity of the HW / SW problem that artificial intelligence represents.

As was mentioned above, you're assuming robots can't become engineers for some reason.  But even if they can't, do you really believe that the number of engineering jobs created would be close to the number of jobs lost?  What about all the people who can't get a job in engineering?

If robots become engineers, you would still need humans to take care of the engineering robots.  I don't think there is much of a profit motive for a company to create a robot that is programmed to think independently and create it's own company.  Then again, Terminator 2.

Robots can fix robots; Machine Learning algorithms already harness BI metrics to make business decisions (ex. what prices to set things at, where to order materials, or when to have sales).

The motive for a company is that if they need zero humans, they have higher profit margins. It think it is an incremental hell: first 'they' are making only simple decision, then more complex ones, and incrementally build their way up until they do everything. Each step along the way is a profitable move.

Quote
There will be a lot of jobs because of the difference between a computer program and the human brain.

Evolutionary neural networks already exist and more advanced learning systems are being created everyday. There are plenty of tasks that were once deemed impossible for a computer brain to beat a human brain at that are now just historical footnotes. Chess & GO being recent examples.

Quote
What about all the people who can't get a job in engineering?  Find a job that robots can't do, or line up for welfare benefits.  I for one am going to push my kid to pursue an engineering / science degree.

STEM fields are predicted to grow slower than the average field in the next few decades.......It is well-established that we've over-hyped what the growth will be like in these fields. (Part of it has to do with not understanding big numbers. One aft thrown around number is "one millions jobs will be created in USA in STEM fields in the next X years". Forgetting that the USA for example has a population growth requiring job growth of 175K a month.)
« Last Edit: December 19, 2016, 02:38:30 PM by kayvent »

Watchmaker

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 154
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #106 on: December 19, 2016, 02:41:57 PM »
So, who is going to do the work to provide the free money?  I'm not.  Government doesn't generate money (although sometimes they print it), people do.

And that's a choice you'd be free to make.  Many others would choose to continue working in order to provide a greater than subsistence level of income.  They might work less then they did before, or maybe the same.  They might be paid more, or less, than they were before depending how desirable their job is, and how good they are at it.

UBI would remove barriers to the movement of employees.  It would be easier to quit a job that you hated, or that had unsafe working conditions, or that produced an inferior product or service.  It would be easier to strike out on your own and start your own company without worrying about feeding your family.  It would be easier to volunteer your time in service to society.  Without the artificial pressure to keep people employed 40 hours a week, we'd be free to pursue the most efficient automation of jobs and use all of our skills to increase productivity and free up more time.  UBI and a free market are a great match.

« Last Edit: December 21, 2016, 07:43:50 AM by Watchmaker »

shelivesthedream

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2159
  • Location: UK
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #107 on: December 19, 2016, 04:18:39 PM »
So, who is going to do the work to provide the free money?  I'm not.

Do you currently earn more than minimum wage? I think that's a pretty good analogy for the incentive (or lack thereof) for people to work while receiving UBI. It's like everyone gets minimum wage for being alive, but if you want more than that you have to work for it. If you're happy subsisting on minimum wage, don't work. I doubt the entire population will be happy with minimum wage/the amount received through UBI.

Current welfare programmes, although patchworked together and not universal, currently provide something of a minimum income floor. That money comes from people who are working enough and earning enough to get taxed. It could work out the same for UBI.

kayvent

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 520
  • Location: Canada
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #108 on: December 19, 2016, 04:19:36 PM »
So, who is going to do the work to provide the free money?  I'm not.  Government doesn't generate money (although sometimes they print it), people do.

And that's a choice you'd be free to make.  Many others would choose to continue working in order to provide a greater than subsistence level of income.  They might work less then they did before, or maybe the same.  They might be paid more, or less, than they were before depending how desirable their job is, and how good they are at it.

UBI would remove barriers to the movement of employees.  It would be easier to quit a job that you hated, or that had unsafe working conditions, or that produced an inferior product or service.  It would be easier to strike out on your own and start your own company without worrying about feeding your family.  It would be easier to volunteer your time in service to society.  Without the artificial pressure to keep people employed 40 hours a week, we'd be free to pursue the most efficient automation of jobs and use all of our skills to increase productivity and free up more time.  UBI and a free market and a great match.

I'm iffy about that last statement. Many people making great salaries find themselves 'trapped' in a position. The MMM blog gives a case of this oddity: that two people with average salaries were able to retire in only a few years of working yet so many people find themselves in their sixties with no savings and drowning in debt.

Drifterrider

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1122
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #109 on: December 19, 2016, 04:22:49 PM »
To those of you equate more welfare with a better economy, study your history.  When government can give you everything, they can also take it away.  When workers have to give more to support those who don't work, the workers stop working.  The rich are rich; they will be alright.

To those who equate Financial Independence with receipt of welfare, you are not independent and you never will be.  You are at the mercy of those still working. (providing you your free independence).

To those of you who think the government is supposed to provide for you, take a good hard look at eastern Europe over the past 80 years.

But perhaps most important, take a look a the founder of this site.  Not at his bicycling to the store or buying a $4 organic fruit.  Take a look at his $600,000 invested (per some reports I've seen), his paid for $200,000 house and his income stream from here and elsewhere.  He hasn't stopped working.  I'd bet he and his wife worked very hard to accumulate then so they could enjoy now.

If he had determined it would be good to "retire" on welfare, he would still be on welfare (and not buying expensive fruit).

Best of luck to all of you who think I'm going to support you because you are entitled to live on the dole.  When I stop working I will be earning substantially less and therefore paying less to support the welfare nation.  I have enough.  How much do you have???

Watchmaker

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 154
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #110 on: December 21, 2016, 08:02:36 AM »
To those of you equate more welfare with a better economy, study your history.  When government can give you everything, they can also take it away.  When workers have to give more to support those who don't work, the workers stop working.  The rich are rich; they will be alright.

To those who equate Financial Independence with receipt of welfare, you are not independent and you never will be.  You are at the mercy of those still working. (providing you your free independence).

To those of you who think the government is supposed to provide for you, take a good hard look at eastern Europe over the past 80 years.

But perhaps most important, take a look a the founder of this site.  Not at his bicycling to the store or buying a $4 organic fruit.  Take a look at his $600,000 invested (per some reports I've seen), his paid for $200,000 house and his income stream from here and elsewhere.  He hasn't stopped working.  I'd bet he and his wife worked very hard to accumulate then so they could enjoy now.

If he had determined it would be good to "retire" on welfare, he would still be on welfare (and not buying expensive fruit).

Best of luck to all of you who think I'm going to support you because you are entitled to live on the dole.  When I stop working I will be earning substantially less and therefore paying less to support the welfare nation.  I have enough.  How much do you have???

I believe that we have an excess of labor.  Up until now, we've hidden it by getting people to consume more, and by inventing work that doesn't really need to be done.  That's going to get harder and harder as productivity improves further.  At some point we'll have to address the fact that we don't need everyone to work 40 hours a week.  And the extra consumption we've come up with to justify more labor isn't a solution: it's bad for us and bad for the environment.

If you disagree with that, that's what we need to discuss (I'll start a new thread).  If you agree with that but don't like UBI as a solution, I would love to hear a different suggestion.

TheOldestYoungMan

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 646
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #111 on: December 21, 2016, 08:39:45 AM »

If you disagree with that, that's what we need to discuss (I'll start a new thread).  If you agree with that but don't like UBI as a solution, I would love to hear a different suggestion.

I like UBI.  But I came to it due to a lack of what I'd consider viable alternatives.  The issues surrounding an ever increasing efficiency in performing work are similar in my mind to the environmental issues.  There is an incredibly scary alternative solution to all of this.

Lots of people have to die.

So I am encouraged that most of humanity seems determined to find another way.  The way you describe how we already deal with the excess of labor, by inventing work that doesn't really need to be done, is interesting.  I hadn't thought of it like that, but expressed in those terms, I feel a great sense of relief.

We're home folks, we don't need to worry about it.  Anyone who has ever worked retail or been in the military knows, there's no shortage of fake work we can create.  What will change is that there will be an increasingly large fourth class of people who opt out, saving up their money to FIRE and cease digging holes to fill up.

As an existential question, regarding engineers not being replaced with robots.  I actually have a script I've written and tested on a couple of thousand emails that acurately answers about 75% of them, properly flags another 20% for my review, and 5% incorrect responses.  One day I will both perfect the script (call that an 85/15 ratio with no errors), remember that I want to stop working, sell it for monies, and put every engineer in my particular job out of work (well, not all of them, but significantly reduce demand).  I assume that most other consulting engineers out there are working on something similar.

Certain things, like the professional protections, give us guild-like status.  We will resist replacement.  But that is different that not being replaceable.
Notice is turned in! 35 days until FIRE!  I am excited and at the same time terrified!

Watchmaker

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 154
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #112 on: December 21, 2016, 09:03:54 AM »

If you disagree with that, that's what we need to discuss (I'll start a new thread).  If you agree with that but don't like UBI as a solution, I would love to hear a different suggestion.

I like UBI.  But I came to it due to a lack of what I'd consider viable alternatives.  The issues surrounding an ever increasing efficiency in performing work are similar in my mind to the environmental issues.  There is an incredibly scary alternative solution to all of this.

Lots of people have to die.

So I am encouraged that most of humanity seems determined to find another way.  The way you describe how we already deal with the excess of labor, by inventing work that doesn't really need to be done, is interesting.  I hadn't thought of it like that, but expressed in those terms, I feel a great sense of relief.

We're home folks, we don't need to worry about it.  Anyone who has ever worked retail or been in the military knows, there's no shortage of fake work we can create.  What will change is that there will be an increasingly large fourth class of people who opt out, saving up their money to FIRE and cease digging holes to fill up.

I tend to agree that this is the most likely direction we'll take.  And it's *relatively* painless.  People can still have very good lives while working fake jobs (they do now).  I just think there's got to be a better way (UBI, perhaps) to achieve the same thing without wasting away so many hours in manufactured drudgery.


As an existential question, regarding engineers not being replaced with robots.  I actually have a script I've written and tested on a couple of thousand emails that acurately answers about 75% of them, properly flags another 20% for my review, and 5% incorrect responses.  One day I will both perfect the script (call that an 85/15 ratio with no errors), remember that I want to stop working, sell it for monies, and put every engineer in my particular job out of work (well, not all of them, but significantly reduce demand).  I assume that most other consulting engineers out there are working on something similar.

It doesn't even need to have no errors.  Though I'm sure you're good at your job, surely you make the occasional error; your script needs only be no worse than you.

kayvent

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 520
  • Location: Canada
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #113 on: December 21, 2016, 04:35:39 PM »
As an existential question, regarding engineers not being replaced with robots.  I actually have a script I've written and tested on a couple of thousand emails that acurately answers about 75% of them, properly flags another 20% for my review, and 5% incorrect responses.  One day I will both perfect the script (call that an 85/15 ratio with no errors), remember that I want to stop working, sell it for monies, and put every engineer in my particular job out of work (well, not all of them, but significantly reduce demand).  I assume that most other consulting engineers out there are working on something similar.

It doesn't even need to have no errors.  Though I'm sure you're good at your job, surely you make the occasional error; your script needs only be no worse than you.

Elon Musk makes that point all the time. Self-driving cars don't need to be perfect. They just need to be better than humans (an easy feat) and be low liability concerns when something does happen.

Libertea

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 363
  • Age: 42
  • Location: USA
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #114 on: December 26, 2016, 02:32:35 PM »
For anyone who's interested in reading a pro-UBI argument from a libertarian, Charles Murray's "In Our Hands" is worth checking out.  He does address several of the issues we've brought up, including work disincentives, health care, and living a meaningful life.  He does not get into the issue of the possibility that many low-skilled jobs will be taken over by robots in the near future.

sokoloff

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 621
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #115 on: December 26, 2016, 07:07:18 PM »
If UBI is to become a thing, I think it's going to have to replace all current welfare-like programs. That's the only way to get enough support from the right and libertarians to cram it through.

If UBI is to become a thing, I'd buy as much low-end rental property as you can get your hands on. UBI would be a massive subsidy to that end of the landlord space I predict.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #116 on: December 27, 2016, 04:24:23 AM »
If UBI is to become a thing, I think it's going to have to replace all current welfare-like programs. That's the only way to get enough support from the right and libertarians to cram it through.

If UBI is to become a thing, I'd buy as much low-end rental property as you can get your hands on. UBI would be a massive subsidy to that end of the landlord space I predict.

Isn't the first part one of the basic points for UBI?

And as to the second point; how is this different than low-rent property currently? Are there significant homeless populations that could only afford housing with UBI that will be moving into these properties?
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

kayvent

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 520
  • Location: Canada
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #117 on: December 27, 2016, 06:31:19 AM »
If UBI is to become a thing, I think it's going to have to replace all current welfare-like programs. That's the only way to get enough support from the right and libertarians to cram it through.

If UBI is to become a thing, I'd buy as much low-end rental property as you can get your hands on. UBI would be a massive subsidy to that end of the landlord space I predict.

Isn't the first part one of the basic points for UBI?

And as to the second point; how is this different than low-rent property currently? Are there significant homeless populations that could only afford housing with UBI that will be moving into these properties?

Some people suggest UBI in addition to the current welfare state. These people are lunatics. One reason I've heard given is to stop the ever struggling middle class from sliding into abject poverty.

I suggest in UBI replacing the welfare state because of the maze beneficiaries need to go through. Because in some areas there are so many boutique programs and they each may require significant paperwork and waiting, some eligible people don't apply either not knowing of a particular program or not wanting to go through the archaic application. Also, some people are too proud or have an objection to apply for certain programs.

sokoloff

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 621
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #118 on: December 27, 2016, 06:34:28 AM »
I think UBI would put a lot more people in a position to afford housing and landlords would know that there was a very reliable income stream present and in the future. Do I need to worry as much about a couple with a 615/640 credit score if I know they've got $1500 or $2000 of UBI coming every month? Do I need to stress about raising the rent from $650 to $675 if I know the household income can absorb that? Are they really going to spend time and money moving if they can afford the raise?

It's not homeless to housed; it's 6 college kids or other young adults crammed into a 3BR that would rather live in 2 3BRs and can now "afford to". It's people who can't qualify for housing now (because landlords rightly fear getting paid reliably) who would now be able to. It's people who are living with their parents out of financial or credit necessity. I see this creating demand on the low-end of the rental and housing spectrum.

At the same time, I think it will harm the middle class via the increased taxation, which may serve to further concentrate demand on the lower end of the housing spectrum by people "sliding back" towards the low end.

We'd need to see what legal arrangements sprang up, but I'd have to think that UBI would be attachable for current housing obligations and/or that some enterprising legal team would come up with a mechanism to offer private assurances to convert the UBI into some kind of housing bond. Would UBI be able to be used to qualify for a mortgage? I'd have to think so. If it can be used to qualify for a mortgage, that implies that it will likely be attachable for legal judgments. If it is, that makes it much more valuable to landlords (and therefore more valuable to recipients as well).


As to the first point, the elimination of all other welfare-type programs, yes, that's the only thing that seems possible to win, but then you start hearing the back-pedaling. "Well, we still need to keep this small, supplemental program for the blind. And we obviously couldn't stop this other program for the physically disabled... And THAT program is worthwhile because of this..." And that's the point where my support immediately dries up along with millions of other people I believe.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2016, 06:36:45 AM by sokoloff »

kayvent

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 520
  • Location: Canada
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #119 on: December 27, 2016, 10:45:58 PM »
My eyes glaze over sokoloff whenever I hear about keeping/adding some boutique benefit in general and especially when in context of UBI.

sokoloff

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 621
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #120 on: December 28, 2016, 06:47:26 AM »
The thing is, these boutique programs actually make some sense on a micro level. I have a (not immediate) family member with serious limitations. She benefits from some of the specific programs and it has enabled our extended family to manage her care and give her the best life she could have for over 70 years.

If she got exactly the same UBI as an able-bodied and able-minded 28 year old, she'd be at an even more serious disadvantage. Yet, I can't support the patchwork of additional programs that would be needed to cover all such legitimate cases. It means abandoning any sense of "equality of opportunity" (which was never medically possible in her case) and may require government run or subsidized "homes" for those who are unable to scrabble by on just UBI. We were able to make it work because her dad worked his tail off in the steel mills and now she gets part of his SS and some kind of SSDI. (Extended family, so don't crucify me on the details.) If his job was there (it's not any more; all those mills are closed) and everyone is living on UBI, she/they don't make it independently.

So, I see the desire to provide supplemental programs, but I can't see that being economically nor politically tenable in addition to UBI.

shelivesthedream

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2159
  • Location: UK
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #121 on: December 28, 2016, 08:26:19 AM »
Yes, supplemental programmes are a real problem for me. I have a friend with a disability that means she's often in a wheelchair (though sometimes she can walk with crutches) and has real problems using her hands. To take just three examples, she HAS to have a car to get anywhere. She finds it hard to get to the bus stop, let alone anywhere further. Also, she can't cut up food or cook safely, so she can only eat packaged microwave meals. She also can't live in a house with stairs, and would ideally always live on the ground floor as you can't use a lift to escape a fire.

She works at the moment (part time) so she's not totally dependent on the state, but her disability seriously limits her ability to reduce her living expenses. She does not live in a personal free market. Her mandatory expenses are higher than for an able-bodied person. (Buying and maintaining a wheelchair too!) So UBI might well impact her unfairly. And she's one of the lucky ones! She can work part time and doesn't need a carer (although has a live-in boyfriend and lives close to her mother). Would UBI be fair to her?

kayvent

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 520
  • Location: Canada
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #122 on: December 28, 2016, 12:04:20 PM »
I'll concede boutique programs then sokoloff & shelivesthedream. You provide useful anecdotes that I didn't think of. When I think of boutique programs I tend to think moreso on the line of "if you send you kids to summer camp, you can deduct X dollars from your income taxes" or similar deductions. Our previous government in Canada proliferated such credits.

shelivesthedream

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2159
  • Location: UK
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #123 on: December 29, 2016, 01:55:47 AM »
It's still difficult to know where to draw the line. And even if you managed to define a firm line around a few supplemental programmes for disability, unfortunately you'd need some people to test and administrate it, which is one of the things UBI is supposed to reduce. Necessary though I believe it is, it could well end up being a slippery slope.

You could, I imagine, design a system that was quite easy to use, though. You just work out what conditions and "extras" the supplemental programme would cover, make a big tick list, and then get the person's GP or whatever to sign saying it's all true.

For example:
- In a wheelchair = housing supplement and wheelchair allowance
- Can't live alone = carers allowance
- Deaf = allowance for hearing aid, textphone and occasional interpreter

Obviously it would get hugely political about what should be covered and what amounts, but in principle it needn't be too complicated to administer. And if the GP lies they're liable for a fine or imprisonment and being struck off.

UBI would also free people up to care for their disabled relatives... but they might not want to...

sokoloff

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 621
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #124 on: December 29, 2016, 06:27:18 AM »
Perfect is the enemy of the good.

Even with our family experience, I'd be supportive of a simplified, imperfect UBI over the current mess. I'll also observe that data analytics could help us catch bad doctors who become known as enabling gaming the system. Raising the stakes enough there could help dampen their enthusiasm to certify non-existing or fraudulent claims.

OurTown

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 449
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Tennessee
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #125 on: December 29, 2016, 09:17:53 AM »
I would submit UBI is not a matter of "if" but "when."  Think about it.  Automation / AI will happen.  It's not going to not happen.  Same with climate change.  A consumer-driven capitalist economy will be out of the question 50 years from now if the consumers don't have anything to spend.  So, how do you pay for it?  Not from income tax; probably a sales or consumption tax.

iris lily

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2421
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #126 on: December 29, 2016, 10:14:31 AM »
Is a UBI scheme not inflationary?  Serious question.

As a fiscally conservative individual, I'd say no. We already have a distorted form of Guaranteed Minimum Income (GMI) through the patchwork of social programs. If you are dirt poor in the US or Canada, you're healthcare is provided for you, you'd qualify for a variety of welfare programs, and the cost of retraining, mental health therapy, etc.... is covered if you can navigate through the maze. I'm not saying that is a glamorous outcome but in our developed nations, we functionally have a floor.

Being a pragmatist, I understand that we need (have) a floor (and there is no way it is going away soon). I'm pro-UBI because GMI has so many holes that tens of thousands of our countrymen fall through them AND GMI has some perverse incentives like the occasional effective tax rate over 100% when you include benefit clawbacks.

UBI is a replacement for a multitude of social programs, not an additional program to add to the system. This is what would keep it from being (too) inflationary.

We, in the U.S., Do NOT have a welfare program to provide income to adults. The income program is TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) and to qualify, adults need to be responsible for at least one child age 19 or below. Also, assistance lasts only 5 years with some exceptions.

What income program takes place in Canadian provinces?

I dnt think we can assume replacing all welfare programs equals a cost of UBI. But I would love to see an authoritative economic study to show it does, in the U.S.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2016, 10:17:19 AM by iris lily »

Libertea

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 363
  • Age: 42
  • Location: USA
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #127 on: December 30, 2016, 07:30:09 AM »
I'm uncomfortable with the idea of having exceptions.  The problem is, if we make an exception for one group, no matter how well-intentioned, we start down the slippery slope of making other exceptions.  And then there's no clear way to stop the descent back into the messed up patchwork of a system we have now.  So if we're going to adopt UBI, it should be all or nothing.  Meaning, if we do it, we replace every current welfare program without exception.

I think part of the problem too is that people assume that if the government doesn't take care of the disabled or others who are unable to work, then no one will.  And that's not necessarily true.  I was reading an interesting book that pointed out how membership in civic organizations like The Knights of Columbus, Masons, Elks, etc. has declined with the rise in the welfare state.  The author was arguing that this was a direct result of the rise of the welfare state, because if government is going to take care of people from cradle to grave, then people reasonably conclude that there is no reason for any of us to individually step up and help.  Basically a Kitty Genovese kind of argument, and it makes sense.  Whereas, if we knew that disabled people wouldn't get any extra benefits outside of the same UBI we all got, we'd feel more of a sense of personal responsibility to join charitable and civic groups to ensure that these people were adequately taken care of.

sokoloff

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 621
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #128 on: December 30, 2016, 08:28:07 AM »
I'm uncomfortable with the idea of having exceptions.  The problem is, if we make an exception for one group, no matter how well-intentioned, we start down the slippery slope of making other exceptions.  And then there's no clear way to stop the descent back into the messed up patchwork of a system we have now.  So if we're going to adopt UBI, it should be all or nothing.  Meaning, if we do it, we replace every current welfare program without exception.
Exactly! +1

iris lily

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2421
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #129 on: December 30, 2016, 03:14:18 PM »
My eyes glaze over sokoloff whenever I hear about keeping/adding some boutique benefit in general and especially when in context of UBI.
yes. So much yes.

There still has to be a social program to take care  of children, whether or not UBI
 is paid out to kids, they still need someone to care for them.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2016, 03:18:27 PM by iris lily »

sokoloff

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 621
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #130 on: December 30, 2016, 03:44:48 PM »
If you're talking about a state or local "Department of Children and Family", I agree.

If you're talking about an additional federal program to give out money or services, I disagree. I don't see any reason that childcare has to be a federal issue; it should be state/local, IMO.

stoaX

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 376
  • Location: SoCal
  • 'tis nothing good nor bad but thinking makes it so
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #131 on: December 30, 2016, 03:53:34 PM »
2. Money management. The way benefits are currently managed in the UK and the US, portions are allocated for specific things. For example, we have housing benefit which can only be used to pay for your housing, and you have food stamps which can only be used to pay for groceries. With the UBI, there is nothing to stop someone spending their monthly income on toys and luxuries and then starving to death on the street. Or even borrowing against the guarantee of their future UBI payments. I would want the UBI to come with a significant financial education programme in schools (and evening classes for adults) so that if someone did spend it all on crap and then not be able to pay rent, at least they would have informed consent.

My two large concerns are this and how the Gov't manages the program.  With the above; when someone chooses to waste food and rent money on gambling, booze, drugs. Then ends up homeless with a couple of young kids, society will cry out for more programs, more $ spent.  While I would agree people shouldnt be starving or living on the street (particularly innocents) it can and will happen.  This means there would have to be at least some type of bureaucracy in place to make sure the funds are being used appropriately if individuals have a history of not doing so. Bureaucracies are inefficient and we are back to square one.



I read all 3 pages of this topic and I don't think I saw any way to overcome the issue above.  It sounds like there is little hope that UBI would replace food stamps, housing subsidies, etc...

sokoloff

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 621
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #132 on: December 30, 2016, 04:46:44 PM »
Limit the amount of ways/purposes for which UBI can be "garnished" legally. That will help prevent people from becoming permanently, legally "broke". It will also limit the utility of UBI somewhat.

Then, pay UBI monthly. If you're "broke" from your own bad choices, you're only broke for a month. Possibly pay UBI weekly for minors. (There's some question as to whether minors should get UBI at all, or if so, whether they should get a full share. I haven't done extensive modeling, but I have to think that giving them a full share is a terrible idea, but giving them nothing is probably not quite enough. Perhaps 25%-33% would be a good compromise value.)

I would strongly object to any federal program to "check" on how the money is being spent. If parents spend money according to their own personal utility function and that function turns out to be terrible, they and their kids will suffer? Tango Sierra. That family and those kids are going to suffer regardless, and the source of the suffering will be their terrible utility function, not the UBI nor the absence of some other more expensive, more invasive program.

Libertea

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 363
  • Age: 42
  • Location: USA
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #133 on: December 30, 2016, 05:07:51 PM »
The problem is, we already have this situation where some irresponsible parents squander their welfare benefits now, under the current system.  The real question here isn't whether some people will "waste" their UBI benefits at the expense of their dependents; there is no doubt that some will, unfortunately.  And the reason why we know for a fact that some people no doubt will waste the money is because some people currently receiving money already do waste it.  So the real questions to my mind are the following: 1) would the squandering problem under the current system be better or worse than the squandering under a UBI system, and 2) even if the squandering would be worse under UBI, do we morally have the right to restrict everyone's spending by force, even the spending of the vast majority of people who would use the money in accordance with what we consider to be "proper" values, just because of the fact that an unknown but significant minority is going to choose to fuck up their own lives and the lives of their dependents? 

I don't particularly want to live in a society where the lowest common denominator among us gets to dictate what you or I get to do....not to mention the concern that power corrupts, and the more power we give to government (which is, we must remember, a monopoly on force), the more it will continue to appropriate for itself.  Not saying there's an easy answer to this issue....but more government "programs" has yet to be a successful solution.  After decades of our war on poverty, war on drugs, war on (fill in various other social ills here), we still have just as much poverty and drug use in our society as ever.  And ultimately, it comes down to what we believe about basic human nature.  I honestly do believe that most people WOULD make better decisions for their lives than nameless, faceless, unaccountable government bureaucrats would make for their lives.  No government bureaucrat cares more about a person's life than that person does.  And that person's right to self-determination should not be subject to bureaucratic whims just because a few other people will make bad decisions.  That is ultimately the root of my support for UBI.

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1242
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #134 on: December 30, 2016, 05:24:04 PM »
Yes, all of the hand-wringing about people "abusing" a UBI system doesn't seem based on any particular data, just like those who constantly complain about welfare queens are not basing their opinions on data. Most people who receive government benefits make good use of them. This is easily verifiable. Also, totally agree with Libertea re: what right do we have to dictate people's spending choices? I don't think "my taxes are paying for them" is nearly good enough.

Regardless, I think for UBI to best work and to avoid some possible (though I have seen nothing yet to indicate probable) increased potential for people blowing their money and taking to the streets, a few other things would help a lot, single-payer healthcare probably chief among them. The bureaucracy created by that program would be more than offset by the elimination of the majority of our patchwork social services system.


Paul der Krake

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3521
  • Age: 9
  • Location: WA
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #135 on: December 30, 2016, 05:56:40 PM »
I'd rather the vast majority of people predictably remain in a given location 5 days per week. Offices and prisons are great for that.


iris lily

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2421
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #136 on: December 30, 2016, 07:15:37 PM »
The problem is, we already have this situation where some irresponsible parents squander their welfare benefits now, under the current system.  The real question here isn't whether some people will "waste" their UBI benefits at the expense of their dependents; there is no doubt that some will, unfortunately.  And the reason why we know for a fact that some people no doubt will waste the money is because some people currently receiving money already do waste it.  So the real questions to my mind are the following: 1) would the squandering problem under the current system be better or worse than the squandering under a UBI system, and 2) even if the squandering would be worse under UBI, do we morally have the right to restrict everyone's spending by force, even the spending of the vast majority of people who would use the money in accordance with what we consider to be "proper" values, just because of the fact that an unknown but significant minority is going to choose to fuck up their own lives and the lives of their dependents? 

I don't particularly want to live in a society where the lowest common denominator among us gets to dictate what you or I get to do....not to mention the concern that power corrupts, and the more power we give to government (which is, we must remember, a monopoly on force), the more it will continue to appropriate for itself.  Not saying there's an easy answer to this issue....but more government "programs" has yet to be a successful solution.  After decades of our war on poverty, war on drugs, war on (fill in various other social ills here), we still have just as much poverty and drug use in our society as ever.  And ultimately, it comes down to what we believe about basic human nature.  I honestly do believe that most people WOULD make better decisions for their lives than nameless, faceless, unaccountable government bureaucrats would make for their lives.  No government bureaucrat cares more about a person's life than that person does.  And that person's right to self-determination should not be subject to bureaucratic whims just because a few other people will make bad decisions.  That is ultimately the root of my support for UBI.

This is all fine, but answer this: how do we as society react when a person squanders his money, has no roof and food and etc. What is our response in your eyes?

I think it is completely fine to let adults squander their money. Most AMericans  do that in some form  according to the values represented on ths website regardless of the source of their income. Yes, self determination rules! But thats not the issue as I see it about squandering, it is  a practical matter: are there ANY  Government support systems in your scenario for those who squander? Do they just live on the street until their next check? Are you assuming  the checks come me monthly? Why dont we make it efficient and send  lump sums out one time a year,  and if we do that, wouldnt there be more squanderng, more homelessness, more lack of food? But, do we turn a blind eye to that?

Yes we do, that is my stance. And, if private money goes out to help,them, so be it, it isnt my tax dollars. But who else agrees with me?

« Last Edit: December 30, 2016, 07:29:11 PM by iris lily »

iris lily

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2421
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #137 on: December 30, 2016, 07:22:50 PM »
If you're talking about a state or local "Department of Children and Family", I agree.

If you're talking about an additional federal program to give out money or services, I disagree. I don't see any reason that childcare has to be a federal issue; it should be state/local, IMO.
ok. i am up for the feds not handling orphaned children.

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1242
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #138 on: December 30, 2016, 09:42:32 PM »
This is all fine, but answer this: how do we as society react when a person squanders his money, has no roof and food and etc. What is our response in your eyes?

I think it is completely fine to let adults squander their money. Most AMericans  do that in some form  according to the values represented on ths website regardless of the source of their income. Yes, self determination rules! But thats not the issue as I see it about squandering, it is  a practical matter: are there ANY  Government support systems in your scenario for those who squander? Do they just live on the street until their next check? Are you assuming  the checks come me monthly? Why dont we make it efficient and send  lump sums out one time a year,  and if we do that, wouldnt there be more squanderng, more homelessness, more lack of food? But, do we turn a blind eye to that?

Yes we do, that is my stance. And, if private money goes out to help,them, so be it, it isnt my tax dollars. But who else agrees with me?

What is our response now? And how is UBI qualitatively different? All data I've seen indicates that whenever more control is given over government assistance, there is no noticeable increase in abuse. Convince me there is a compelling reason to believe there will be a sharp increase in homelessness, etc. with a UBI system and this becomes a valid question. Right now, I'm not sure that it is.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #139 on: December 31, 2016, 04:22:29 AM »
It's still difficult to know where to draw the line. And even if you managed to define a firm line around a few supplemental programmes for disability, unfortunately you'd need some people to test and administrate it, which is one of the things UBI is supposed to reduce. Necessary though I believe it is, it could well end up being a slippery slope.

You could, I imagine, design a system that was quite easy to use, though. You just work out what conditions and "extras" the supplemental programme would cover, make a big tick list, and then get the person's GP or whatever to sign saying it's all true.

For example:
- In a wheelchair = housing supplement and wheelchair allowance
- Can't live alone = carers allowance
- Deaf = allowance for hearing aid, textphone and occasional interpreter

Obviously it would get hugely political about what should be covered and what amounts, but in principle it needn't be too complicated to administer. And if the GP lies they're liable for a fine or imprisonment and being struck off.

UBI would also free people up to care for their disabled relatives... but they might not want to...

Why would we not just set UBI at a level that would cover these necessities?  No doubt some of them would also need to be addressed with healthcare reform
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

sokoloff

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 621
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #140 on: December 31, 2016, 06:06:58 AM »
Whatever level of UBI is financially solvent will, by necessity, be quite (or extremely) austere.

"Just" paying a higher UBI to everyone doesn't really work as inflation will chip away at the buying power just as surely as if we switched tomorrow to a system that said "our new currency is the 'new USD (nUSD)'; for the next 200 years we fix the exchange rate between the nUSD and the legacy USD at 2:1 and everyone now getting paid or paying on contracts in lUSD will get paid or pay 2x the face value in nUSD"

Everyone who was a half-millionaire is suddenly a millionaire. Every millionaire is now a multi-milionaire. Nothing has changed though.

The UBI is coming from somewhere. Living on just UBI will probably suck; it'll just suck less than being unemployed without any money coming in.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #141 on: December 31, 2016, 06:29:19 AM »
Not saying it wouldn't suck. Working part time while being wheelchair bound or being incapacitated due to stroke or drunk drivers would also suck - it just wouldn't suck as bad as being dead in the street, and the point of UBI is to keep people like this from dying in the street. I mean, that's literally the whole point.  So it would need to be at a level high enough to prevent this or it would be pointless.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Libertea

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 363
  • Age: 42
  • Location: USA
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #142 on: December 31, 2016, 08:36:29 AM »
This is all fine, but answer this: how do we as society react when a person squanders his money, has no roof and food and etc. What is our response in your eyes?

I think it is completely fine to let adults squander their money. Most AMericans  do that in some form  according to the values represented on ths website regardless of the source of their income. Yes, self determination rules! But thats not the issue as I see it about squandering, it is  a practical matter: are there ANY  Government support systems in your scenario for those who squander? Do they just live on the street until their next check? Are you assuming  the checks come me monthly? Why dont we make it efficient and send  lump sums out one time a year,  and if we do that, wouldnt there be more squanderng, more homelessness, more lack of food? But, do we turn a blind eye to that?

Yes we do, that is my stance. And, if private money goes out to help,them, so be it, it isnt my tax dollars. But who else agrees with me?
All of the UBI scenarios I've read assume a monthly check, and I've been assuming the same, similar to how SS and other benefits are paid out now.  But you're right; there's no inherent reason why it's necessary to pay it out monthly as opposed to yearly.  However, given that most people's major expenses (housing, car payment, utilities, etc.) are due on a monthly basis, I think doling out the money on a monthly basis is a sensible compromise.  Also, in this day and age of electronic everything, it's not like it costs more to dole the money out monthly as opposed to yearly.  If everyone is getting an electronic deposit, it doesn't save money to only send it out once per year like it would if you had to pay for paper, an envelope, a printer, and a stamp.  You could just automate the whole thing and tell the computer to deposit X number of dollars in every citizen's account at midnight on the first of the month.  Done.

To answer your other question: no other programs whatsoever, at least none funded by the government.  People who needed assistance in between checks would have to seek help from private sources like family/friends, charity, loans, or personal savings.

maizeman

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1386
  • Location: The World of Tomorrow
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #143 on: December 31, 2016, 09:08:28 AM »
With regards to the concern about people blowing their whole check and being out starving in the street with their children until the end of the month, one simple solution would just be to pay smaller amounts at more frequent intervals (combined with the suggestion up-thread that UBI wouldn't be allowed to be garnished or assigned).

Say we're talking about a UBI of $1,500/month. Every night at 8:30 at night, $50 lands in every person's account. A bed in an extremely basic hostel might run $20-25/night while enough food for a day (even without the benefits of building in bulk or cooking at home) could be purchased for $10-15 day. This has two advantages: 1) people treat immediate needs as more fixed than future needs and, as a result, even people with poor impulse control are less likely gamble/drink/shop away the money they need for food that night than the money they need to make rent at the end of the month. 2) Even if they do make a mistake and end up cold and hungry, they're only cold and hungry for one night before they get another shot at making it work.

For people who are capable of budgeting and deferring gratification a month out the system would work just the same as before (the $50 payments build up in your account and you send in your rent check on the 1st of the month) so a change in payment rate isn't transferring any freedom or control away from people back to the government, but does have the potential to make it a little less likely those without these abilities get into serious trouble.
"Itís a selective retirement," Richard explained, "a retirement from boring s**t."

My source code & my journal

sokoloff

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 621
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #144 on: December 31, 2016, 09:36:33 AM »
Paying smaller amounts more frequently seems like a good and workable idea.

Whether it's daily, weekly, or monthly, it's not going to be anywhere NEAR $1500/mo. At $1500/mo for everyone in the US, that comes to just shy of 6 trillion USD. For comparison, the total federal tax revenues for 2016 are going to be approximately 3.5 trillion USD, including payroll taxes.

At $1500/mo/person, this one program would present 5/3rds of all federal tax revenues.

A more realistic figure is probably much closer to $650/mo, assuming you take ALL of the current federal spending on healthcare, social security, veteran's benefits, pensions, and welfare and direct it into UBI. This says nothing of the legality of cancelling existing or contractually promised federal pensions, nor the morality/practicality of changing the existing social security and Medicare systems, of course.

$650/mo/person still leaves us with a deficit (as today) and is a pretty meager existence for sure!

shelivesthedream

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2159
  • Location: UK
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #145 on: December 31, 2016, 09:48:13 AM »
Huh. I like the daily payments. I hadn't thought of that before but it makes a lot of sense - especially as this would all be happening in a post-automation world.

Regarding supplemental benefits for disabled people... The point of UBI is to stop people starving and to give them choices. It would be enough money for basic food and shelter (and presumably minimal utilities/transport costs) but no luxuries. Then people have the choice to either reduce their expenses to that level or to work to earn more money. What I'm saying is, this really screws people over who do not have the option to reduce their expenses or to work to earn more money - really, genuinely, 100% do not have those choices available to them. Like my friend I talked about upthread does not have the choice to buy bulk dried beans and rice to reduce her food expenses because she is physically unable to cook them. And at the moment she can work part time but her condition is progressive and at some point in the next decade she will not have the choice to work to earn more money. How can UBI work the same for someone who has choices and someone who does not?

sokoloff

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 621
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #146 on: December 31, 2016, 09:59:04 AM »
How can we afford UBI if we set it at the level where the most catastrophically disadvantaged person can still survive on it?

Your friend (and my aunt) will need to rely on family and/or local charity. IMO, that's fine and preferable to the most likely alternative world where UBI doesn't exist at all.

iris lily

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2421
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #147 on: December 31, 2016, 10:32:29 AM »
This is all fine, but answer this: how do we as society react when a person squanders his money, has no roof and food and etc. What is our response in your eyes?

I think it is completely fine to let adults squander their money. Most AMericans  do that in some form  according to the values represented on ths website regardless of the source of their income. Yes, self determination rules! But thats not the issue as I see it about squandering, it is  a practical matter: are there ANY  Government support systems in your scenario for those who squander? Do they just live on the street until their next check? Are you assuming  the checks come me monthly? Why dont we make it efficient and send  lump sums out one time a year,  and if we do that, wouldnt there be more squanderng, more homelessness, more lack of food? But, do we turn a blind eye to that?

Yes we do, that is my stance. And, if private money goes out to help,them, so be it, it isnt my tax dollars. But who else agrees with me?

What is our response now? And how is UBI qualitatively different? All data I've seen indicates that whenever more control is given over government assistance, there is no noticeable increase in abuse. Convince me there is a compelling reason to believe there will be a sharp increase in homelessness, etc. with a UBI system and this becomes a valid question. Right now, I'm not sure that it is.

So your answer  to squandering is that we would have the same response we have now. Do you NOT understand that "same response as now" means a patchwork of tax funded social services? Also, of course, there are privately funded services such as night shelters, food banks, feeding programs, etc. But lets center on tax funded services.

My point is NOT there would be more squandering in a UBI scenario. My point is: if there continues to be backup social  services in a UBI environment, what is the MF point of UbI? 
« Last Edit: January 15, 2017, 04:32:13 PM by iris lily »

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1242
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #148 on: December 31, 2016, 11:16:48 AM »
This is all fine, but answer this: how do we as society react when a person squanders his money, has no roof and food and etc. What is our response in your eyes?

I think it is completely fine to let adults squander their money. Most AMericans  do that in some form  according to the values represented on ths website regardless of the source of their income. Yes, self determination rules! But thats not the issue as I see it about squandering, it is  a practical matter: are there ANY  Government support systems in your scenario for those who squander? Do they just live on the street until their next check? Are you assuming  the checks come me monthly? Why dont we make it efficient and send  lump sums out one time a year,  and if we do that, wouldnt there be more squanderng, more homelessness, more lack of food? But, do we turn a blind eye to that?

Yes we do, that is my stance. And, if private money goes out to help,them, so be it, it isnt my tax dollars. But who else agrees with me?

What is our response now? And how is UBI qualitatively different? All data I've seen indicates that whenever more control is given over government assistance, there is no noticeable increase in abuse. Convince me there is a compelling reason to believe there will be a sharp increase in homelessness, etc. with a UBI system and this becomes a valid question. Right now, I'm not sure that it is.

So your answer  to squandering is that we would have the same response we have now. Do you NOT understamd that "same response as now" means a patchwork of tax funded social services? Also, of course, there are privately finded services such as night shelters, food banks, feeding programs, etc. But lets center on tax funded services.

My point is NOT there would be more squandering in a UBI scenario. My point is: if there continues to be backup social  services in a UBI environment,, what is the MF point of UbI? 

Of course I understand that. What you don't seem to understand is that the majority of those tax funded social services are aimed at keeping people off the street, not helping them once they are there. Those in place to help the homeless (e.g. housing programs) very often save taxpayers money.

Add in just one additional program: single payer healthcare and pretty much all of your and shelivesthedream's objections are addressed quite well. From what I have heard so far, the only way I can see your point as concerning is if you think poor people will abuse UBI leading to more of them on the street. If not, perhaps you could explain which of our current social programs are so essential as to be impossible to replace under my proposal?

A mom

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 81
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #149 on: December 31, 2016, 01:25:22 PM »

[/quote]

perhaps you could explain which of our current social programs are so essential as to be impossible to replace under my proposal?
[/quote]

Long term care for the severely disabled. I don't see where people are going to voluntarily pick this up, and it costs way more than $650/month even if no money at all were spent on living expenses.