How large should the social safety net be?

Great Debates
1

[I wasn’t entirely sure where to put this: IMHO? Elections? This seemed the most appropriate landing spot]

Democrats these days are sometimes derided by their opponents for trying to “buy” votes by offering “free” stuff to voters, in the form of things like college education, child care, and healthcare.

Now, any fair analysis of any particular Democratic plan would reveal that nothing is being offered for “free”. Rather, they are proposing either raising revenue or using existing revenue to add certain things to (for purposes of discussion, I’m calling it) the ‘social safety net’.

The things is, the concept of such a social safety net isn’t new or altogether radical. In fact, it’s sort of the underpinning of society - people congregate together because they can collectively provide for a better living environment than if people lived in isolation. And for generations we’ve understood that there are at least some services which should be collectively available, which are therefore collectively paid for.

Take fire abatement. Cities organized fire departments from before the beginning of the nation. Today, nobody thinks it odd, strange, or remotely controversial that anybody in town is entitled to help from the fire department if something is ablaze, or that the fee for this sort of thing is paid for indirectly by the community.

In our modern American life, there are other things that have been added to our social safety net which are also viewed as normal and justified: emergency response services (e.g. 911 calls), which can summon emergency healthcare, law enforcement, or the aforementioned fire abatement are currently entrenched parts of American life, and it would be a shock (and probably quite controversial) should somebody start trying to remove them, or make them fee-based (“911, what credit card will you be using today?”).

So, too, with education between 1st and 12th grades. Or the ability to cross the country on paved roads that lack tolls. Things like these are not givens; they are not provided for in the constitution (unlike, say, the Post Office); nevertheless, we in 21st century USA have these things, and they are usually considered good.

In that vein, then, it is pretty absurd to say that Democratic proposals are socialism, or free giveaways - in our country, certain things are collectively offered for the good of all. And it is entirely fair to debate and argue about the scope of such things (I’m reminded of the old story about the man talking to the woman about the cost for sex; we’ve already established what she is, now we’re just negotiating price).

For example, and jumping on some Democratic proposals:
Education: Should it be subsidized for residents between 1st and 12th grades, or should that also include preschool and college?

Healthcare: Should it be available without point of sale costs only when there’s a dire emergency, or should that also apply to preventive care or more mundane maladies?

Other examples certainly abound (on almost any area, there are potential extremes. It’s probably easy to agree to collective help if your home catches fire, but I doubt we’d all be on board with collective help if your home needs some repairs due to wear and tear).

What lines do you draw? How big should our safety net be?

2

Generally, I draw the line at how much we can afford. Pensions offer no consolation if they are paid for out of overdrawn accounts.

~Max

3

I always suggest, given the rich, roboticized society we have, or want to have, people should be afforded a completely decent basic living without having to pay anything extra, because I would rather see talented, motivated people at my workplace rather than someone who brings negative utility but needs a job to afford the rent.

4

There is no safety net; instead there are hundreds of specialized programs. Some individuals do very well under this system by qualifying for several programs, why others fall through the holes. So if you are poor and receive subsidized housing you are much better off than those in the same economic circumstances who can’t get it (the demand is vastly larger than the supply).

So lots of us prefer starting with a basic income program and eliminating lots of these specialized programs.

5

The safety net for vulnerable people in need should be at least as large and expensive as the one we furnish for defense contractors, extractive energy and other corporate giveaways. Once we’ve achieved parity then we can have another conversation about whether the safety net need expanding.

Oh, and in before “I don’t want my taxes paying for…” because taxes don’t pay for a goddamned thing in this country and we “pay for things” by paying for them, just the same way we do now with bombs and endless regime change wars and 600B/year to corporate subsidies. MMT is a thing and it’s reality.

6

One possible “floor” for the social safety net – everything that’s provided to imprisoned convicted criminals. If we give criminals a bare minimum of food, shelter, and health care, then maybe we should give someone whose crime is laziness, or non-criminal foolishness, the same, at a minimum.

7

Here’s an off-the-cuff, probably not realistic idea (but I think clearly positions me):

We’re living in a world of plenty. What if we could re-route or direct all future economic growth into systems that reduce the need for work and income in order to achieve the level of comfort we enjoy today. And, let’s maybe make sure that those systems are enacted with the goal of providing all people with those benefits, not just those who are “earning” them.

8

How about people in need because of circumstances beyond their control? How about we take care of them first and then try to figure out what an acceptable level of laziness and non-criminal foolishness is.

9

I think everyone would get on board with that. What is that cost?

10

Sounds good to me, and doesn’t necessarily conlict with what I offered.

11

This isn’t very helpful. Are you saying, what we can afford at current spending and taxing levels without cutting any current spending? Why? Let’s say we raise taxes to 90% and cut military spending by 90%. Now, what should the social safety net be?

To the OP: We don’t need to reinvent the wheel here. The Danes are apparently consistently some of the happiest people on Earth, very productive, etc. Why don’t we provide what they provide (whatever that is)? My answer, whatever the Danes have.

12

Less than the cost of NOT providing it. These things are going to be paid for, it’s merely a question of who’s paying it and how efficiently the resources are allocated. For instance, I live in Portland OR and we have a huge problem of homelessness here. Homeless people get their needs met and right now I and others who’re not all that far above the homeless in terms of actual wealth are paying for their needs via stolen items, camps along the bike trails and in every available spot of public land and picking up their shit and garbage and used needles. Personally, I would prefer the government, which has WAY more resources than I and my neighbors do, would pick up the tab for these impoverished citizens because I fucking well can’t afford it. This is not an efficient form of allocation at all and a lot of us are fucking sick of things functioning in this lame and halting manner. It sucks.

13

Well, the problem with ALL government expenditures at ALL levels of government, is that both parties seem loathe to actually fund the expenditures. You either have to limit what you promise/provide, or raise the $ somewhere.

And I perceive Americans as generally opposed to paying the true costs of what they consume. They want cheap fuel, and an expensive military to force the rest of the world to “subsidize” the American way of life. Then take health care. I’ve been meaning to research how - if at all - countries like Britain/Canada deal with excessive consumption.

I support some base level of free health care: prenatal, inoculations, even some level of more advanced care. But not open ended to all.

And I think our society (and others) are going to have to come to grips with what to do with the least employable portion of our population. I think a universal income of some low level - maybe $1000/month, with caps per family, recouped from income via tax, is the most economic way to provide for them.

I’d support subsidized pre-school, because there are many things which, if the kid hasn’t been exposed to them by age 5, they are already challenged as to whether they will ever pick them up.

14

Anyone who is homeless and/or stealing items to survive is, by definition, not getting their needs met. It is hard to give a simple figure on how much it would cost to fix all that, since it would involve a reallocation of resources as well as a lot of political stuff.

ETA this “low level” basic income stuff cannot be too basic; for example, when they tried giving people in Finland $500 per month or so, people responded that it didn’t really increase their financial security by all that much in case they happened to be unemployed.

15

Just FYI, the “free” being mentioned there is free to the recipient, not the federal government’s budget.

For example, Andrew Yang wants to give people $1000/month “for free”. He’s got a budgetary plan that’s purportedly going to provide the government enough revenue to do that, but for the recipients, it’s supposed be essentially a “free” grand every month: they’re not working or doing anything to “earn” it. They’re just getting the money “for free”.

Smaller than it is today, and most importantly, not administered by the federal government.

16

What happens when those “least employable” people end up getting evicted / starving because rather than purchasing groceries and paying rent, or paying the water and gas bills with their money they want to Disneyland or bought a bunch of meth with their $1000? Are we then, as a society, going to say “Fuck it, we tried man, we really did, we gave you $1000 every month and you fucked it all up anyways, so fuck you, go freeze and / or starve out of sight somewhere”? Are we going to say that to those people’s children? If not (and I assume the answer is ‘no’), then perhaps we should find some other way to provide them groceries and rent and heating fuel costs than just cutting them $1000 checks … which ends up looking an awful lot like what we’re doing today.

17

No, you misunderstand me. In my opinion the maximum cost of the “safety net” should be such that in the long run, the sum of all those welfare programs, along with all other government expenditures, are less than or equal to the total of all government revenue.

Assuming that our current spending levels result in a surplus (which is not the case), and all other things equal, the change in safety net expenditures should not generally exceed the new funds (delta tax revanue - delta military expense).

~Max

18

Then, it’s factually inaccurate, isn’t it? The recipient, by dint of being a member of society, contributes to the payment, albeit indirectly. It’s only ‘free’ at the point of use, but that’s not weird or uncommon - do you think you get ‘free’ cable because you don’t pay a fee every time you turn on the TV?

If Yang has a budgetary plan to pay for this, it’s not free; rather, it’s being paid by whomever supplies the funds in that budget. If the general citizenry is the source of that budget (in the form of taxes), then the citizens are paying for it.

And your position that the recipients wouldn’t have earned it seems an odd point to make about something that would be added to the social safety net. What, exactly (besides being a member of society) did you do to ‘earn’ the right to go to public school, or be able to call 911 if you need emergency assistance?

Does this include protection from foreign invasion? Is that also something that should not be administered by the federal government, or is the military somehow exempt from the idea that a large federal program is not worthwhile?

Also, “smaller than it is today” - So, what are you getting rid of? 911? Emergency room care? Public schooling? What elements of modern American society that we all have access to should be removed from availability.

19

That’s really my biggest issue with UBI; I’m not convinced that a big chunk of the population would actually act responsibly or prudently with the money, and would just have the same problems they already do, only better funded, and we’ll STILL be on the hook to rescue them from their own mistakes.

Case in point- a certain poor guy I know wouldn’t somehow be less of a drag on society if he had another $1000 a month; he’d just do stupid on a larger scale. He’d buy rims, more expensive beer, more gold chains, etc… but he wouldn’t save it or anything reasonable like that.

20

I also think that UBI, somewhere in that vicinity (enough to survive entirely on, but with very little luxury), is a good idea. I’d further suggest that, rather than being implemented as a monthly payment, that it be structured more finely.

Everyone would have a “UBI account”, that they can access with a UBI debit card. When you sign up for the program, you can tell the system how much your rent and other recurring bills are, and on what day they’re due, and you’ll get lump sums of those amounts on those days. The rest of the money will trickle into your account on a day-by-day basis.

When the rent comes due, you have enough money to pay the rent, because it was just deposited into your account on that day. You can spend your day’s food budget on something else, if you choose, and then you’ll be hungry that day… but you’re not going to starve in a day, and on the next day, you’ll have enough money to buy food again. It’d still be possible to mismanage your finances, but it’d never happen by accident, and anyone willing to go to that much effort to screw themselves over, I think society has fulfilled our obligation.

All that said, I don’t necessarily think it’s wise to implement a twelve-grand-a-year UBI all at once, nationwide. I think it’d be a good thing, but I’m not omniscient, and that’s an awfully big social experiment.