How About This To "End" Welfare

[Velocity]

@running_coach

How about this? (numbers just for illustration)
30,000 max UBI
If you make 25,000, you get 5,000 to bring you up. If you only make 15,000, you get 15,000. Maybe for declared household add 15,000 for one(extra) adult and 10,000 per child.
There should be area adjustments. Even SF or NYC need cashiers, waitstaff, janitors, all those low wage jobs.

Then this is a real work-incentive-killer.

Suppose someone works a really laborious, menial job, and makes $27,000 a year. They’ll get $3,000 UBI to bring them up to $30,000.

Why would they keep working that job when they could just quit on the spot and receive a $30,000 UBI check every year, for doing no work whatsoever?

(Assuming I’m understanding your plan correctly.)

[running_coach]

@Velocity

Then this is a real work-incentive-killer.

Suppose someone works a really laborious, menial job, and makes $27,000 a year. They’ll get $3,000 UBI to bring them up to $30,000.

Why would they keep working that job when they could just quit on the spot and receive a $30,000 UBI check every year, for doing no work whatsoever?

(Assuming I’m understanding your plan correctly.)

Some people will still work.
Besides, with ever increasing automation, there will be more and more people for whom there is no job.
Say a grocery store puts in self serve lanes and fires nine of their ten cashiers. The one remaining watches over the self serve. What do the other nine do? Is cashiering the level of job they can do or can any be retrained? What about the ones who don’t have the education or are too old?

[k9bfriender]

@Kobal2

That’s why UBI is less interesting than “the government provides 10 heated square meters, a bed, a TV, healthcare and as much NutriPaste™ as you can put away ; every day, for the rest of your life - anything further you gotta work for”.

@Wesley_Clark

This is probably more realistic I’d guess.

Small studio apartments, basic food and health care. Not a bad life by any means, but probably something that only costs a few hundred a month to provide (other than the health care).

That’s the safety net that I would have the most support for. Keeps you healthy, safe, and living with dignity, but no luxuries, and maybe you are left just a bit uncomfortable.

Socialism is the best way to make sure that everyone is able to get the resources they need to survive, but capitalism is still far superior to allocate resources to those who are willing to work harder to fulfill their wants.

@Chimera

The other side of that coin is what happens in bad times, or under oppressive governments.

Look at North Korea. Basic apartments and really low levels of food provided, but you have to be party members, yada yada to get more. You also get drafted on a regular basis to harvest crops, work in the countryside, etc. And you’re expected to come up with “gifts” to the leaders or military on top of that, out of your misery pay.

Given the “make these people work” requirements that Republicans want to put on welfare and basic assistance, do we really want the government to be able to mandate those sorts of forced labor things on the poor, on people receiving guaranteed basic income? Because I guarantee that would happen, even here.

The idea is that in such a system, there isn’t enough work for everyone to do. If there isn’t enough work for everyone to do, then requiring people to find work to do in order to survive doesn’t really work out too well. In such a system, there also is no work to force people to do.

[D_Anconia]

@running_coach

Is cashiering the level of job they can do or can any be retrained? What about the ones who don’t have the education or are too old?

What education are you talking about? Cashiering doesn’t even require a high school diploma.

[adaher]

@running_coach

Medicare is not fucking welfare.

Given that at least for the current generation they will get tons more out than they ever paid in, and our generation will get less than we paid in, it is certainly at the very least an unearned intergenerational transfer of wealth.

[running_coach]

@adaher

Given that at least for the current generation they will get tons more out than they ever paid in, and our generation will get less than we paid in, it is certainly at the very least an unearned intergenerational transfer of wealth.

Obviously, you know shit about Medicare.
It’s no more welfare that any other insurance. And the co-pays without Medicare supplemental plans would bankrupt near anyone.

[D_Anconia]

@running_coach

Obviously, you know shit about Medicare.

Obviously, you know shit about Medicare. Most people receive more benefits than they pay in.

Sorry, Seniors, You Didn't Pay for (All of) That

[running_coach]

@D_Anconia

Obviously, you know shit about Medicare. Most people receive more benefits than they pay in.

Sorry, Seniors, You Didn't Pay for (All of) That

I think I’ll ignore that link. He claims Medicare costs of 105 trillion yet the link shows some sort of debt clock. Current Medicare liabilities are under 28 billion with no indication of where the 105 trillion figure came from.

[adaher]

@running_coach

Obviously, you know shit about Medicare.
It’s no more welfare that any other insurance. And the co-pays without Medicare supplemental plans would bankrupt near anyone.

it is heavily subsidized insurance, subsidized by workers out of our paychecks.

[running_coach]

@adaher

it is heavily subsidized insurance, subsidized by workers out of our paychecks.

So is all insurance.

[D_Anconia]

@running_coach

So is all insurance.

All insurance is not subsidized out of our paychecks. Try again.

And ignoring legit links just makes you look silly.

[Czarcasm]

@thatbpguy

This is certainly not a new idea and is being practiced in various ways around the world. The idea is to take all the money spent on every form of “welfare” and disperse it monthly to every person in the country. But this means food stamps, medicare, housing money… are all gone. You get your monthly allotment and that’s that. Now, to be sure it should be prorated for various reasons but it eliminates all fraud… You can be a drug addict, homeless, try and be achiever… and that check rolls in every month.

I like the idea.

Leaving out that which isn’t in any way welfare, I have two questions:

1. How much do you think each person would get, and
2. Why should Bill Gates, the Koch Brothers and Oprah Winfrey get this money?

[tomndebb]

@HurricaneDitka

There’s no way society is going to say “tough shit, guess you’ll just have to be homeless / starve” to all the people that waste their UBI on beer and smokes / Nikes / heroine.

Along with all the corporations getting “incentives,” of course, that wind up going into stock options for board members and C*Os.

[thatbpguy]

@Wesley_Clark

Sounds vaguely like universal basic income.

In the US, we spend maybe ~2.5 trillion a year on various forms of welfare (if you include health care programs like medicaid, medicare, SCHIP, etc as welfare).

That works out to about $8000 a year per person.

It sounds like a bad idea, because when people are elderly they collect on average about 30k a year in social security and medicare. They collect very little the rest of their lives. You are just taking the money they collect in the final 15-20 years of life and dispersing it over the entire 80 years.

If there’s a means test, it probably would be closer to $2,000 per person.

I like the idea.

We can still have private and religious charity. I’m just speaking about government payouts.

[thatbpguy]

@Czarcasm

Leaving out that which isn’t in any way welfare, I have two questions:

1. How much do you think each person would get, and
2. Why should Bill Gates, the Koch Brothers and Oprah Winfrey get this money?

As I said, a means tests is applied.

For those who have it in them to try and achieve, they will get little to none. For those who can’t, or won’t, they get their check and that’s it. That’s all the government will do for them.

[HurricaneDitka]

@thatbpguy

As I said, a means tests is applied.

For those who have it in them to try and achieve, they will get little to none. For those who can’t, or won’t, they get their check and that’s it. That’s all the government will do for them.

What are you going to do about the people who are too stupid to use their stipend for things like rent, groceries, electricity bill, etc? Let them starve / freeze as a warning to others?

[Czarcasm]

@thatbpguy

As I said, a means tests is applied.

For those who have it in them to try and achieve, they will get little to none. For those who can’t, or won’t, they get their check and that’s it. That’s all the government will do for them.

Again, do you have any understanding as to what is welfare and what isn’t?

[thatbpguy]

@HurricaneDitka

What are you going to do about the people who are too stupid to use their stipend for things like rent, groceries, electricity bill, etc? Let them starve / freeze as a warning to others?

What I say to them is an old Russian trusted saying- That’s just tough shitsky.

[thatbpguy]

@Czarcasm

Again, do you have any understanding as to what is welfare and what isn’t?

Oh I think I do. I used to work for the feds with homeless and incarcerated vets. After about 6 years we were all laid off during the Clinton Administration. I have a daughter dying with a disease and she gets Medicare…

Yes, I have a clue.

Maybe stop shitting on me and read the forum rules.

[Czarcasm]

@thatbpguy

What I say to them is an old Russian trusted saying- That’s just tough shitsky.

Cute.
What’s the max in cash a family could receive under this system, and what would it take to get to that point?