The transition team has drafted a new document of Guiding Principles and New Rules for our community. These rules will go into effect on November 25. 2024.
[Guaranteed Jobs vs Basic Income]: Socialist Cage Match
The rich aren’t actually as scary as you’re making them out to be
I’m under no illusions that this is an easy sell, but guess what makes it an even harder sell
Making the rich out to be impossible to beat so we might as well never try to control the narrative
I’m sick and tired of my side ceding the messaging battle to the other side because it’s too hard/they’re not to be trifled with/etc.
Most things worth doing aren’t easy
We should do them anyway and start this conversation now
They're worse, actually. The wealthy are one of the key groups, who have their hands in multiple venues which make getting bills like UBI past congress a nightmare (media, culture etc), who make bills like UBI either a nightmare to get anything past or kill bills outright (that is if they bring UBI to the floor in the first place, which isn't a guarantee RE: McConnell).
They do control the narrative, unlike the Dems they have a whole ecosystem of entrenched support at their beck and call and they're very good at using it to get what they want. They last few years they've become more partisan and obstructive, as well. Fox News alone will be a huge barrier to UBI passing. It's not ceding the message, our side both has a harder job selling its message because it requires more nuance and the voters they're going after have higher expectations and they don't have huge portions of the media in their literal pocket.
Acknowledging the wealthy are a big threat isn't a perception issue, it's a reality issue. An bill that has its supporters ignoring the political might of their opponents will end in disaster because America isn't a socialist paradise. If it was we'd have been getting numerous bills akin to UBI, or better, through congress over the decades but we haven't. We've had to settle for bills like the ACA because socialist idealised bills like the Single Option were never an option to begin with.
True, most things aren't easy and you're right we should do them but we need to do them smart. Which means recognising the abilities of our opponents, and preparing accordingly rather than arrogantly assuming everything will go our way because We're Right. (We're Right counts for nothing in politics.) If that was the case the last few years would have looked a whole lot different than the reality we live in, which included George W. Bush, Trump and Obama's admin getting record levels of obstruction.
Edit: The point is that any politicians pushing a UBI bill through Congress must contend with both the GOP, their backers and find an alliance with enough votes or the whole debate about UBI remains moot since whatever fantasy UBI this thread comes up with will never become law. Which is A thing I thought would have been a high priority fir people who want to make UBI a thing that exists rather than a fantasy which exists in our minds. But I guess not.
I know because my budget is vauge and draconian depending on the outlook just seeing how people account for the paycheck when we get paid is horrifying
Ignores that "government provided/subsidized caretaker" is exactly the type of government job a jobs guarantee proposes.
3. Basic jobs don’t help parents
Ignores that "government provided/subsidized childcare" is exactly the type of government job a jobs guarantee proposes.
You can't dismiss UBI as inefficient and then argue for having people pay others to take over their caretaker duties so that they can work more instead of just paying people for that caretaker work.
I feel like if welfare benefits were universal it might dampen the level of worrying lower middle class Americans do over poor Americans spending habits
Doubtful. The lower middle class's belief in their superiority over those poorer then them is rooted in the idea of "hard work".
0
MeeqeLord of the pants most fancySomeplace amazingRegistered Userregular
edited May 2018
I want to thank you Harry, your explanations of why the Dems can't get anything done, ever, on any issue has been educational and made me rethink my previous full support of them.
+1 Socialist created, you're doing the people's work here. I'll still vote for a Dem over a Pub, but its time to primary some establishment Dems if this is the best defense of their efforts that can be summoned on an issue with this kind of bi-partisan support.
I want to thank you Harry, your explanations of why the Dems can't get anything done, ever, on any issue has been educational and made me rethink my previous full support of them.
+1 Socialist created, you're doing the people's work here. I'll still vote for a Dem over a Pub, but its time to primary some establishment Dems if this is the best defense of their efforts that can be summoned on an issue with this kind of bi-partisan support.
Except they do get things done, and I've explained why - they're just not miracle workers. No, they're not perfect, and do make huge errors from time to time - like any political party.
It's cool to primary the Dems you dislike, but if you expect anyone you support to get better results under those circumstances I'll be very shocked.
Bipartisan support is the name of the game in politics, and even then it's tough to get anything done RE: ACA. UBI will be operating in that same system, this goes double for a Republican held congress.
If you think my arguments have flaws in them, please, go into detail into why I'm wrong rather than dismissing my statements without comment.
+1
MeeqeLord of the pants most fancySomeplace amazingRegistered Userregular
edited May 2018
Edit: This was unnecessary, so I'm taking it down. Sorry to all involved.
I find it interesting that when people talk about all the waste that will happen giving people cash instead of benefits the responses are a combination of "people can do whatever they want with the money, it's their money" and "waste just doesn't really happen that much, most people use the money effectively."
But now all of the sudden we need to be worried that these people who should be able to use their money however they want, and who will likely use it well (for the most part), actually can't be trusted with all of the money once a year. Now we are worried that they would budget poorly, and waste the money. Even though they can't waste it since they can spend it however they want, which is a perk of this system.
"People know what their own needs are and what they should be spending money on better than a vast and impersonal bureaucracy." And "People are not often very good at planning out long term budgeting needs and can have problems wisely apportioning money from a single lump sum to account for all potential future needs." Are not contradictory statements.
I mean they sort of are. "people are good at spending their own money" vs "people are bad at spending their own money." At least in ways that would most benefit them.
But I guess goumindong had the right of it that you could also just pay it out monthly.
I stand by my point though, that if you are restructuring the tax code anyway, there’s no reason to do a UBI. Just give money only to those with low or no income. Scale it back slowly with increasing
Income so that increased wages always results in increased earnings.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
I had a whole thing typed, then thought better of it. Carry on with your water carrying for failed tactics and lack of leadership from them, I'm mot going to slide into the morass of shifting goalposts and long winded post hoc insistance that eventually, one day, the Dems will sway the America public by not standing up for the values that you claim they have.
Knock it off. Discuss the topic at hand or take a break if you're done discussing it.
I find it interesting that when people talk about all the waste that will happen giving people cash instead of benefits the responses are a combination of "people can do whatever they want with the money, it's their money" and "waste just doesn't really happen that much, most people use the money effectively."
But now all of the sudden we need to be worried that these people who should be able to use their money however they want, and who will likely use it well (for the most part), actually can't be trusted with all of the money once a year. Now we are worried that they would budget poorly, and waste the money. Even though they can't waste it since they can spend it however they want, which is a perk of this system.
"People know what their own needs are and what they should be spending money on better than a vast and impersonal bureaucracy." And "People are not often very good at planning out long term budgeting needs and can have problems wisely apportioning money from a single lump sum to account for all potential future needs." Are not contradictory statements.
I mean they sort of are. "people are good at spending their own money" vs "people are bad at spending their own money." At least in ways that would most benefit them.
But I guess goumindong had the right of it that you could also just pay it out monthly.
I stand by my point though, that if you are restructuring the tax code anyway, there’s no reason to do a UBI. Just give money only to those with low or no income. Scale it back slowly with increasing
Income so that increased wages always results in increased earnings.
The more smooth the decline the easier it is to eliminate poverty traps
I find it interesting that when people talk about all the waste that will happen giving people cash instead of benefits the responses are a combination of "people can do whatever they want with the money, it's their money" and "waste just doesn't really happen that much, most people use the money effectively."
But now all of the sudden we need to be worried that these people who should be able to use their money however they want, and who will likely use it well (for the most part), actually can't be trusted with all of the money once a year. Now we are worried that they would budget poorly, and waste the money. Even though they can't waste it since they can spend it however they want, which is a perk of this system.
"People know what their own needs are and what they should be spending money on better than a vast and impersonal bureaucracy." And "People are not often very good at planning out long term budgeting needs and can have problems wisely apportioning money from a single lump sum to account for all potential future needs." Are not contradictory statements.
I mean they sort of are. "people are good at spending their own money" vs "people are bad at spending their own money." At least in ways that would most benefit them.
But I guess goumindong had the right of it that you could also just pay it out monthly.
I stand by my point though, that if you are restructuring the tax code anyway, there’s no reason to do a UBI. Just give money only to those with low or no income. Scale it back slowly with increasing
Income so that increased wages always results in increased earnings.
There are many reasons to do UBI if you are restructuring tax code.
Whether you agree with them or not is a different matter.
Less hassle for everyone for one.
Broader support because it is universal (instead of a "hand out to the lazy <insert demographic here>") for another.
Providing an ongoing stimulus (people will be using that money, instead of hoarding it in whatever tax haven is in fasion at the time) for third.
I find it interesting that when people talk about all the waste that will happen giving people cash instead of benefits the responses are a combination of "people can do whatever they want with the money, it's their money" and "waste just doesn't really happen that much, most people use the money effectively."
But now all of the sudden we need to be worried that these people who should be able to use their money however they want, and who will likely use it well (for the most part), actually can't be trusted with all of the money once a year. Now we are worried that they would budget poorly, and waste the money. Even though they can't waste it since they can spend it however they want, which is a perk of this system.
"People know what their own needs are and what they should be spending money on better than a vast and impersonal bureaucracy." And "People are not often very good at planning out long term budgeting needs and can have problems wisely apportioning money from a single lump sum to account for all potential future needs." Are not contradictory statements.
I mean they sort of are. "people are good at spending their own money" vs "people are bad at spending their own money." At least in ways that would most benefit them.
But I guess goumindong had the right of it that you could also just pay it out monthly.
I stand by my point though, that if you are restructuring the tax code anyway, there’s no reason to do a UBI. Just give money only to those with low or no income. Scale it back slowly with increasing
Income so that increased wages always results in increased earnings.
There are many reasons to do UBI if you are restructuring tax code.
Whether you agree with them or not is a different matter.
Less hassle for everyone for one.
Broader support because it is universal (instead of a "hand out to the lazy <insert demographic here>") for another.
Providing an ongoing stimulus (people will be using that money, instead of hoarding it in whatever tax haven is in fasion at the time) for third.
It can also be easily structured to grow as inequality (or automation) rises in prevelance.
In reality, the adoption of the WCA in October 2008 introduced the greatest government enforced human suffering in the history of social security funding, as chronically ill people who are too ill to work are being, quite literally, killed by the State with an average of 90 people per month dying after being refused access to ESA and found “fit for work”.
Means testing quickly becomes a political tool to get people off of welfare rolls so you can claim that welfare recipients have dropped.
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Beyond just the problems discussed with a yearly tax based UBI you're also creating an incredibly rigid system. Gain a new dependent in May? We'll get fucked until April.
Beyond just the problems discussed with a yearly tax based UBI you're also creating an incredibly rigid system. Gain a new dependent in May? We'll get fucked until April.
No? They would have got their UBI during the last tax season if they were eligible.
Beyond just the problems discussed with a yearly tax based UBI you're also creating an incredibly rigid system. Gain a new dependent in May? We'll get fucked until April.
No? They would have got their UBI during the last tax season if they were eligible.
If you create a UBI program that has greater distributions for people with dependents or life style effecting disabilities, which I think is pretty well agreed upon here, and disperse once a year, you're leaving people who's position changes significantly between disbursements in the cold.
Its not insurmountable, but it is an argument in favor of crafting UBI like a paycheck.
No. I don't think its well agreed upon that disabilities and dependents should effect UBI. If other programs are needed there other programs can be made or reinforced.
With UBI there would only be one time at which your disbursement would change, when you become an adult and attain it.
Which just puts us back to the place we're at now, where poor people can't afford children. Why you'd then go and create a bunch of other programs rather than just increasing UBI allotment to cover childcare is beyond me. You're just working yourself back up to where you started that way.
1) No. It does not. If we have a UBI that does not means test and is universal and simple then we are, indeed, ahead, one UBI that does not means test and is universal.
2) Because then we're back at means testing... with everything bad that that implies. And if you're not talking about means testing then wooo boy holy shit adding inducements to reproduce seems like just plain the worst idea.
3) We indeed would not need to create other programs for it because those programs currently exist. Why would you tie those things into UBI? What would it give you besides weakening the program?
4) I don't actually care if "poor people can't afford children". I care that children are cared for regardless of their parents income situation. Building inducements to reproduce into UBI even if its only for a small subset of the population still seems like a super bad idea, possibly the worst idea, because money is fungible and there is no guarantee that that aid will be spent in a way that fulfills the claimed purpose
UBI based on headcount isn't "means testing" dude. All we'd be doing here is giving every citizen funds and directing that of minors to their legal guardians.
4) I don't actually care if "poor people can't afford children". I care that children are cared for regardless of their parents income situation. Building inducements to reproduce into UBI even if its only for a small subset of the population still seems like a super bad idea, possibly the worst idea, because money is fungible and there is no guarantee that that aid will be spent in a way that fulfills the claimed purpose
How is this not the Reagan welfare mothers nonsense?
0
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
UBI based on headcount isn't "means testing" dude. All we'd be doing here is giving every citizen funds and directing that of minors to their legal guardians.
4) I don't actually care if "poor people can't afford children". I care that children are cared for regardless of their parents income situation. Building inducements to reproduce into UBI even if its only for a small subset of the population still seems like a super bad idea, possibly the worst idea, because money is fungible and there is no guarantee that that aid will be spent in a way that fulfills the claimed purpose
How is this not the Reagan welfare mothers nonsense?
Most of the UBI models I’ve seen have a reduced amount for minors. IE 10k for each adult and 4K for each minor.
UBI based on headcount isn't "means testing" dude. All we'd be doing here is giving every citizen funds and directing that of minors to their legal guardians.
4) I don't actually care if "poor people can't afford children". I care that children are cared for regardless of their parents income situation. Building inducements to reproduce into UBI even if its only for a small subset of the population still seems like a super bad idea, possibly the worst idea, because money is fungible and there is no guarantee that that aid will be spent in a way that fulfills the claimed purpose
How is this not the Reagan welfare mothers nonsense?
Most of the UBI models I’ve seen have a reduced amount for minors. IE 10k for each adult and 4K for each minor.
I'm not opposed to that either, but its kind of neither here nor there in terms of the claim that its means testing.
UBI based on headcount isn't "means testing" dude. All we'd be doing here is giving every citizen funds and directing that of minors to their legal guardians.
4) I don't actually care if "poor people can't afford children". I care that children are cared for regardless of their parents income situation. Building inducements to reproduce into UBI even if its only for a small subset of the population still seems like a super bad idea, possibly the worst idea, because money is fungible and there is no guarantee that that aid will be spent in a way that fulfills the claimed purpose
How is this not the Reagan welfare mothers nonsense?
Because Reagan’s welfare queen nonsense was about people using multiple names to collect multiple benefits. I just don’t care if people want kids. (And indeed fewer kids is better)
Also “life style effecting disabilities” may not technically be means testing but like... it’s pretty goddamn close.
UBI based on headcount isn't "means testing" dude. All we'd be doing here is giving every citizen funds and directing that of minors to their legal guardians.
4) I don't actually care if "poor people can't afford children". I care that children are cared for regardless of their parents income situation. Building inducements to reproduce into UBI even if its only for a small subset of the population still seems like a super bad idea, possibly the worst idea, because money is fungible and there is no guarantee that that aid will be spent in a way that fulfills the claimed purpose
How is this not the Reagan welfare mothers nonsense?
Because Reagan’s welfare queen nonsense was about people using multiple names to collect multiple benefits. I just don’t care if people want kids. (And indeed fewer kids is better)
Also “life style effecting disabilities” may not technically be means testing but like... it’s pretty goddamn close.
You're talking about people having kids to game the welfare system. Even if we assume it would happen with a UBI that accounts for kids, which I'm very far from allowing, that reasoning would hold true for any welfare program based around child rearing.
The ability to be able to afford to raise kids is as big a part of reproductive justice as anything else. Its also pretty self-evidently gross to look at a system that would make it hard for the poor to have kids but not the rich and think "well fewer kids is better".
Reproductive justice is about the freedom to make choices. It is not about receiving benefits for having them. We can provide for low income children in other ways.
Reproductive justice is about the freedom to make choices. It is not about receiving benefits for having them. We can provide for low income children in other ways.
Whether you can afford to have kids or not is a direct factor in your freedom to choose whether to reproduce or not. Your reasoning is basically Republicanism 101. And yeah, of course we can provide for the in other ways, we can provide a basic standard of living in ways other than UBI too. But if we have a UBI its straight forward to allot it to everyone, with guardians as caretakers for minors.
Why should you subsidize rich people having children? Why would you provide fungible benefits? Why wouldn’t you just use all the programs that are in place today?
It’s not republicanism it’s just that the purpose of UBI is to aleviate general poverty ailments with minor economic impact and not to be every support project for everything.
Why should you subsidize rich people having children? Why would you provide fungible benefits? Why wouldn’t you just use all the programs that are in place today?
It’s not republicanism it’s just that the purpose of UBI is to aleviate general poverty ailments with minor economic impact and not to be every support project for everything.
This is literally a rehash of the argument "why have a UBI at all" except this time its being spent on something you don't seem to personally approve of. I'm fine paying for rich kids while paying for poor kids for the exact same reasons as I'm fine giving some money to rich people while also giving it to poor. 29th page of this.
UBI is there to support a minimum standard of human happiness and decency. One that precludes the ability to take care of children fails to meet what is historically a core component of human happiness and fulfillment.
Furthermore, if you're using UBI, as you say, as the best way to alleviate poverty, its really fucking weird to say "but it shouldn't account for dependents, they should use this other network of programs". Trying to have it both ways here.
Why should you subsidize rich people having children? Why would you provide fungible benefits? Why wouldn’t you just use all the programs that are in place today?
It’s not republicanism it’s just that the purpose of UBI is to aleviate general poverty ailments with minor economic impact and not to be every support project for everything.
This is literally a rehash of the argument "why have a UBI at all" except this time its being spent on something you don't seem to personally approve of. I'm fine paying for rich kids while paying for poor kids for the exact same reasons as I'm fine giving some money to rich people while also giving it to poor. 29th page of this.
UBI is there to support a minimum standard of human happiness and decency. One that precludes the ability to take care of children fails to meet what is historically a core component of human happiness and fulfillment.
Furthermore, if you're using UBI, as you say, as the best way to alleviate poverty, its really fucking weird to say "but it shouldn't account for dependents, they should use this other network of programs". Trying to have it both ways here.
It's not really that hard to have the UBI scale off based on the legal guardian's income levels. You just make the child deduction on taxes be progressive.
And as the UBI is meant to provide a level of income for survival, not for a quality life, the exact amount provided for each child can be calculated in such a way as to support the child but not incentivize having living standards increase as family size increases.
Basic UBI should be universal, and same for everyone, and it should be large enough to support one person, and maybe a kid.
But child support should exist on top of that i think (and should not depend on the income levels of the parent, all children should be equal in the eyes of the state).
UBI is not, and should not be a catch all for every type of government assistance.
Basic UBI should be universal, and same for everyone, and it should be large enough to support one person, and maybe a kid.
But child support should exist on top of that i think (and should not depend on the income levels of the parent, all children should be equal in the eyes of the state).
UBI is not, and should not be a catch all for every type of government assistance.
I'm not suggesting it be such. In the past page or two I acknowledged that we will still need things like health care assistance and care for the infirm, mentally handicapped, and others unable to take care of themselves.
You can't say the UBI should be "enough to support one person and maybe a kid" because the needs of a single person, a single parent, and a married couple with a child are very different. A UBI can be based on marriage status and dependents in the same way that our current tax code addresses them. And I would argue it could be improved upon for the single parent scenario.
Why should you subsidize rich people having children? Why would you provide fungible benefits? Why wouldn’t you just use all the programs that are in place today?
It’s not republicanism it’s just that the purpose of UBI is to aleviate general poverty ailments with minor economic impact and not to be every support project for everything.
This is literally a rehash of the argument "why have a UBI at all" except this time its being spent on something you don't seem to personally approve of. I'm fine paying for rich kids while paying for poor kids for the exact same reasons as I'm fine giving some money to rich people while also giving it to poor. 29th page of this.
UBI is there to support a minimum standard of human happiness and decency. One that precludes the ability to take care of children fails to meet what is historically a core component of human happiness and fulfillment.
Furthermore, if you're using UBI, as you say, as the best way to alleviate poverty, its really fucking weird to say "but it shouldn't account for dependents, they should use this other network of programs". Trying to have it both ways here.
UBI is a good way to aleviate poverty specifically because it does not operate with respect to what you spend it on, because it does not distort the economy, and because it does not produce poverty traps. It’s not because it a theoretically great targeted poverty measure but because targeting doesn’t work or matter for general poverty.
Plus, the big one, there is no general poverty program in the US which adequately covers the problem or could adequately cover the program.
But dependents don’t fit that mold. It is indeed a choice to have children and extra income will distort that choice.
This is especially true because there already are specific programs in place to deal with underprivileged children. You could replace these programs with a flat payment... but... but why? The cracks don’t exist for stable families because the big four needs(food, shelter, schooling, healthcare) are all readily available and subsidized for children.
Just like I don’t care that you can’t live on 10k in NYC I don’t care that you that you don’t get extra income to have a family on UBI.
Basic UBI should be universal, and same for everyone, and it should be large enough to support one person, and maybe a kid.
But child support should exist on top of that i think (and should not depend on the income levels of the parent, all children should be equal in the eyes of the state).
UBI is not, and should not be a catch all for every type of government assistance.
I'm not suggesting it be such. In the past page or two I acknowledged that we will still need things like health care assistance and care for the infirm, mentally handicapped, and others unable to take care of themselves.
You can't say the UBI should be "enough to support one person and maybe a kid" because the needs of a single person, a single parent, and a married couple with a child are very different. A UBI can be based on marriage status and dependents in the same way that our current tax code addresses them. And I would argue it could be improved upon for the single parent scenario.
Obviously i can, i just did.
Yes, everyones needs are different, even two single persons will have different needs.
And definitely different wants.
The point of the "and maybe a kid" is that welfare, child support, etc, can occasionally have hickups, so i'd want UBI to have enough wiggle room that if someone who is living on UBI has a child, they can keep on going without child support if one of those hickups happen, even if the money will be tighter than it used to be.
Why should you subsidize rich people having children? Why would you provide fungible benefits? Why wouldn’t you just use all the programs that are in place today?
It’s not republicanism it’s just that the purpose of UBI is to aleviate general poverty ailments with minor economic impact and not to be every support project for everything.
This is literally a rehash of the argument "why have a UBI at all" except this time its being spent on something you don't seem to personally approve of. I'm fine paying for rich kids while paying for poor kids for the exact same reasons as I'm fine giving some money to rich people while also giving it to poor. 29th page of this.
UBI is there to support a minimum standard of human happiness and decency. One that precludes the ability to take care of children fails to meet what is historically a core component of human happiness and fulfillment.
Furthermore, if you're using UBI, as you say, as the best way to alleviate poverty, its really fucking weird to say "but it shouldn't account for dependents, they should use this other network of programs". Trying to have it both ways here.
UBI is a good way to aleviate poverty specifically because it does not operate with respect to what you spend it on, because it does not distort the economy, and because it does not produce poverty traps. It’s not because it a theoretically great targeted poverty measure but because targeting doesn’t work or matter for general poverty.
Plus, the big one, there is no general poverty program in the US which adequately covers the problem or could adequately cover the program.
But dependents don’t fit that mold. It is indeed a choice to have children and extra income will distort that choice.
This is especially true because there already are specific programs in place to deal with underprivileged children. You could replace these programs with a flat payment... but... but why? The cracks don’t exist for stable families because the big four needs(food, shelter, schooling, healthcare) are all readily available and subsidized for children.
Just like I don’t care that you can’t live on 10k in NYC I don’t care that you that you don’t get extra income to have a family on UBI.
Neither of these things are even vaguely comparable. You're spending a lot of words to try to get around a really simple problem. You want to provide a basic level of income for people but you don't seem to think that children need a basic level of income (through guardians) to sustain or wouldn't sufficiently benefit from one.
Yeah, it'll "distort" the choice, in that being poor won't preclude properly raising a child. How terrible. Anyway, implying that the big needs of poor children are adequately taken care of by the current net is just a joke.
Its all just animosity towards a lifestyle you don't prefer. No one else would compare wanting to provide a good childhood with wanting to live in NYC otherwise.
Basic UBI should be universal, and same for everyone, and it should be large enough to support one person, and maybe a kid.
But child support should exist on top of that i think (and should not depend on the income levels of the parent, all children should be equal in the eyes of the state).
UBI is not, and should not be a catch all for every type of government assistance.
I really feel a basic standard of living {Health care, a place to stay and food] are guaranteed to all.
It's not bargain basement standard but a livable standard of living. Back when I learned about UBI and the theory of the basic standard of living in high school many of the arguments and points brought up then have little value in today
As still how would be pay for it? Would the cost of living level out or come down? How should we implement it?
On the horizon is the great job apocalypse. It's soon and it's coming just when is the question.
Basic UBI should be universal, and same for everyone, and it should be large enough to support one person, and maybe a kid.
But child support should exist on top of that i think (and should not depend on the income levels of the parent, all children should be equal in the eyes of the state).
UBI is not, and should not be a catch all for every type of government assistance.
I really feel a basic standard of living {Health care, a place to stay and food] are guaranteed to all.
It's not bargain basement standard but a livable standard of living. Back when I learned about UBI and the theory of the basic standard of living in high school many of the arguments and points brought up then have little value in today
As still how would be pay for it? Would the cost of living level out or come down? How should we implement it?
On the horizon is the great job apocalypse. It's soon and it's coming just when is the question.
Is now, or will be with UBI?
Because atleast in the US, i've gotten an impression that they are not.
Scandinavia is better at it, but not perfect, and UBI would be in an improvement.
Might as well just give UBI to every citizen regardless of age I suppose?
This way we address the disability/kid nonsense. Maybe if we have to scale it up based on age, 0-15 gets one set of number, 16-21 another set, then 21+ gets the final max amount? I dunno if that's necessarily equivalent to means testing but it would help some issues with disabilities and dependents?
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
+3
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
I think there is the thought that exceptionally large families would benefit greatly from UBI and the 18 kids and counting group would be doing 400k a year, but no matter how the system is setup there will be outliers that are disproportionately negatively or positively effected by a UBI program.
"Society and Large Families" is very easily at least one thread all its own, as well as with "Collectives within Societies".
In American overall culture, however, these are outliers, and while they would certainly need to be factored in, I don't think they affect the overall merit of any particular action. Americans still lean heavily toward the nuclear family thing whenever they can afford to do so, and I expect that UBI would increase that pattern when people can finally afford to get the hell away from other people once in awhile.
Posts
They're worse, actually. The wealthy are one of the key groups, who have their hands in multiple venues which make getting bills like UBI past congress a nightmare (media, culture etc), who make bills like UBI either a nightmare to get anything past or kill bills outright (that is if they bring UBI to the floor in the first place, which isn't a guarantee RE: McConnell).
They do control the narrative, unlike the Dems they have a whole ecosystem of entrenched support at their beck and call and they're very good at using it to get what they want. They last few years they've become more partisan and obstructive, as well. Fox News alone will be a huge barrier to UBI passing. It's not ceding the message, our side both has a harder job selling its message because it requires more nuance and the voters they're going after have higher expectations and they don't have huge portions of the media in their literal pocket.
Acknowledging the wealthy are a big threat isn't a perception issue, it's a reality issue. An bill that has its supporters ignoring the political might of their opponents will end in disaster because America isn't a socialist paradise. If it was we'd have been getting numerous bills akin to UBI, or better, through congress over the decades but we haven't. We've had to settle for bills like the ACA because socialist idealised bills like the Single Option were never an option to begin with.
True, most things aren't easy and you're right we should do them but we need to do them smart. Which means recognising the abilities of our opponents, and preparing accordingly rather than arrogantly assuming everything will go our way because We're Right. (We're Right counts for nothing in politics.) If that was the case the last few years would have looked a whole lot different than the reality we live in, which included George W. Bush, Trump and Obama's admin getting record levels of obstruction.
Edit: The point is that any politicians pushing a UBI bill through Congress must contend with both the GOP, their backers and find an alliance with enough votes or the whole debate about UBI remains moot since whatever fantasy UBI this thread comes up with will never become law. Which is A thing I thought would have been a high priority fir people who want to make UBI a thing that exists rather than a fantasy which exists in our minds. But I guess not.
I know because my budget is vauge and draconian depending on the outlook just seeing how people account for the paycheck when we get paid is horrifying
What are the caretaker duties ?
Doubtful. The lower middle class's belief in their superiority over those poorer then them is rooted in the idea of "hard work".
+1 Socialist created, you're doing the people's work here. I'll still vote for a Dem over a Pub, but its time to primary some establishment Dems if this is the best defense of their efforts that can be summoned on an issue with this kind of bi-partisan support.
Except they do get things done, and I've explained why - they're just not miracle workers. No, they're not perfect, and do make huge errors from time to time - like any political party.
It's cool to primary the Dems you dislike, but if you expect anyone you support to get better results under those circumstances I'll be very shocked.
Bipartisan support is the name of the game in politics, and even then it's tough to get anything done RE: ACA. UBI will be operating in that same system, this goes double for a Republican held congress.
If you think my arguments have flaws in them, please, go into detail into why I'm wrong rather than dismissing my statements without comment.
I mean they sort of are. "people are good at spending their own money" vs "people are bad at spending their own money." At least in ways that would most benefit them.
But I guess goumindong had the right of it that you could also just pay it out monthly.
I stand by my point though, that if you are restructuring the tax code anyway, there’s no reason to do a UBI. Just give money only to those with low or no income. Scale it back slowly with increasing
Income so that increased wages always results in increased earnings.
Knock it off. Discuss the topic at hand or take a break if you're done discussing it.
The more smooth the decline the easier it is to eliminate poverty traps
There are many reasons to do UBI if you are restructuring tax code.
Whether you agree with them or not is a different matter.
Less hassle for everyone for one.
Broader support because it is universal (instead of a "hand out to the lazy <insert demographic here>") for another.
Providing an ongoing stimulus (people will be using that money, instead of hoarding it in whatever tax haven is in fasion at the time) for third.
It can also be easily structured to grow as inequality (or automation) rises in prevelance.
https://www.welfareweekly.com/sick-and-disabled-brits-killed-by-the-state-crime-without-punishment/
Means testing quickly becomes a political tool to get people off of welfare rolls so you can claim that welfare recipients have dropped.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
No? They would have got their UBI during the last tax season if they were eligible.
If you create a UBI program that has greater distributions for people with dependents or life style effecting disabilities, which I think is pretty well agreed upon here, and disperse once a year, you're leaving people who's position changes significantly between disbursements in the cold.
Its not insurmountable, but it is an argument in favor of crafting UBI like a paycheck.
With UBI there would only be one time at which your disbursement would change, when you become an adult and attain it.
2) Because then we're back at means testing... with everything bad that that implies. And if you're not talking about means testing then wooo boy holy shit adding inducements to reproduce seems like just plain the worst idea.
3) We indeed would not need to create other programs for it because those programs currently exist. Why would you tie those things into UBI? What would it give you besides weakening the program?
4) I don't actually care if "poor people can't afford children". I care that children are cared for regardless of their parents income situation. Building inducements to reproduce into UBI even if its only for a small subset of the population still seems like a super bad idea, possibly the worst idea, because money is fungible and there is no guarantee that that aid will be spent in a way that fulfills the claimed purpose
How is this not the Reagan welfare mothers nonsense?
I'm not opposed to that either, but its kind of neither here nor there in terms of the claim that its means testing.
Because Reagan’s welfare queen nonsense was about people using multiple names to collect multiple benefits. I just don’t care if people want kids. (And indeed fewer kids is better)
Also “life style effecting disabilities” may not technically be means testing but like... it’s pretty goddamn close.
You're talking about people having kids to game the welfare system. Even if we assume it would happen with a UBI that accounts for kids, which I'm very far from allowing, that reasoning would hold true for any welfare program based around child rearing.
The ability to be able to afford to raise kids is as big a part of reproductive justice as anything else. Its also pretty self-evidently gross to look at a system that would make it hard for the poor to have kids but not the rich and think "well fewer kids is better".
Whether you can afford to have kids or not is a direct factor in your freedom to choose whether to reproduce or not. Your reasoning is basically Republicanism 101. And yeah, of course we can provide for the in other ways, we can provide a basic standard of living in ways other than UBI too. But if we have a UBI its straight forward to allot it to everyone, with guardians as caretakers for minors.
It’s not republicanism it’s just that the purpose of UBI is to aleviate general poverty ailments with minor economic impact and not to be every support project for everything.
This is literally a rehash of the argument "why have a UBI at all" except this time its being spent on something you don't seem to personally approve of. I'm fine paying for rich kids while paying for poor kids for the exact same reasons as I'm fine giving some money to rich people while also giving it to poor. 29th page of this.
UBI is there to support a minimum standard of human happiness and decency. One that precludes the ability to take care of children fails to meet what is historically a core component of human happiness and fulfillment.
Furthermore, if you're using UBI, as you say, as the best way to alleviate poverty, its really fucking weird to say "but it shouldn't account for dependents, they should use this other network of programs". Trying to have it both ways here.
It's not really that hard to have the UBI scale off based on the legal guardian's income levels. You just make the child deduction on taxes be progressive.
And as the UBI is meant to provide a level of income for survival, not for a quality life, the exact amount provided for each child can be calculated in such a way as to support the child but not incentivize having living standards increase as family size increases.
Note - This is aimed at both SS and Goum.
But child support should exist on top of that i think (and should not depend on the income levels of the parent, all children should be equal in the eyes of the state).
UBI is not, and should not be a catch all for every type of government assistance.
I'm not suggesting it be such. In the past page or two I acknowledged that we will still need things like health care assistance and care for the infirm, mentally handicapped, and others unable to take care of themselves.
You can't say the UBI should be "enough to support one person and maybe a kid" because the needs of a single person, a single parent, and a married couple with a child are very different. A UBI can be based on marriage status and dependents in the same way that our current tax code addresses them. And I would argue it could be improved upon for the single parent scenario.
UBI is a good way to aleviate poverty specifically because it does not operate with respect to what you spend it on, because it does not distort the economy, and because it does not produce poverty traps. It’s not because it a theoretically great targeted poverty measure but because targeting doesn’t work or matter for general poverty.
Plus, the big one, there is no general poverty program in the US which adequately covers the problem or could adequately cover the program.
But dependents don’t fit that mold. It is indeed a choice to have children and extra income will distort that choice.
This is especially true because there already are specific programs in place to deal with underprivileged children. You could replace these programs with a flat payment... but... but why? The cracks don’t exist for stable families because the big four needs(food, shelter, schooling, healthcare) are all readily available and subsidized for children.
Just like I don’t care that you can’t live on 10k in NYC I don’t care that you that you don’t get extra income to have a family on UBI.
Yes, everyones needs are different, even two single persons will have different needs.
And definitely different wants.
The point of the "and maybe a kid" is that welfare, child support, etc, can occasionally have hickups, so i'd want UBI to have enough wiggle room that if someone who is living on UBI has a child, they can keep on going without child support if one of those hickups happen, even if the money will be tighter than it used to be.
Neither of these things are even vaguely comparable. You're spending a lot of words to try to get around a really simple problem. You want to provide a basic level of income for people but you don't seem to think that children need a basic level of income (through guardians) to sustain or wouldn't sufficiently benefit from one.
Yeah, it'll "distort" the choice, in that being poor won't preclude properly raising a child. How terrible. Anyway, implying that the big needs of poor children are adequately taken care of by the current net is just a joke.
Its all just animosity towards a lifestyle you don't prefer. No one else would compare wanting to provide a good childhood with wanting to live in NYC otherwise.
I really feel a basic standard of living {Health care, a place to stay and food] are guaranteed to all.
It's not bargain basement standard but a livable standard of living. Back when I learned about UBI and the theory of the basic standard of living in high school many of the arguments and points brought up then have little value in today
As still how would be pay for it? Would the cost of living level out or come down? How should we implement it?
On the horizon is the great job apocalypse. It's soon and it's coming just when is the question.
Is now, or will be with UBI?
Because atleast in the US, i've gotten an impression that they are not.
Scandinavia is better at it, but not perfect, and UBI would be in an improvement.
This way we address the disability/kid nonsense. Maybe if we have to scale it up based on age, 0-15 gets one set of number, 16-21 another set, then 21+ gets the final max amount? I dunno if that's necessarily equivalent to means testing but it would help some issues with disabilities and dependents?
In American overall culture, however, these are outliers, and while they would certainly need to be factored in, I don't think they affect the overall merit of any particular action. Americans still lean heavily toward the nuclear family thing whenever they can afford to do so, and I expect that UBI would increase that pattern when people can finally afford to get the hell away from other people once in awhile.