# How large should the social safety net be? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 30, 2019, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-should-the-social-safety-net-be/842704 "2019-10-30T16:39:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Ambivalid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a5b964/32.png) [@Ambivalid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ambivalid)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2019, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-should-the-social-safety-net-be/842704/101 "2019-11-01T18:53:57Z")
> [@Oredigger77](#): > > Why? I don’t see a reason the disabled should lead a better life than the lazy. The idea here is to create a floor that gives people an acceptable minimum life. That means that some people, either through their own fault or through no fault of their own, will live at the floor level. After that most people will work to create a better life for themselves than that floor level not everyone will or will want to do that and that is OK. > > It is a reasonable argument where to set that minimum acceptable living standard. I guess it is also reasonable argument that we should provide a better lifestyle to those who are at the minimum through no fault of there own though once we get to the point of deciding who is there through their own fault or not were back to a higher level of government intervention that I would prefer. > > On the other hand you seem to want to keep the current saftey net in full force and then add UBI on top of it and that is just silly since it doubles (at least) the expenditures in the system. I guess silly is the wrong term but it does seem you’d be better off arguing that the floor for UBI needs to be raised if it’s enacted since it would accomplish the same thing. Fair enough, just don’t lie to the American people when trying to sell your plan. That is what Yang is doing, imo. Also, the difference between disability payments for the disabled and a UBI for the lazy is that the UBI provides _additional_ options to what those lazy yet fully capable adults have. The lazy get 12,000/year without lifting a finger. If they are content with that lifestyle, ok, more power to them. But if living in abject poverty (which is what 12 grand/year falls in, if im not mistaken), they _can_ earn money on top of that guaranteed UBI, in order to better their quality of life and provide better security. Not so with the disabled. The disability payments, lets say 12 grand a year, are all they will ever receive. They cant _decide_ not to be disabled and become employed on top of that disability payment. And even if they could, anything more than a small, part time low paying job would cut them off from those payments, which is very much different than what UBI would mean for every other citizen. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2019, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-should-the-social-safety-net-be/842704/102 "2019-11-01T19:30:32Z")
> [@Dinsdale](#): > > OK. So how do we get doctors to stop ordering the tests that the gov’t pays for. And keep patients from demanding them? Why do you not want doctors to order tests for their patients? Isn’t that part of diagnostic health care? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![SmartAleq](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smartaleq/32/163_2.png) [@SmartAleq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAleq)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2019, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-should-the-social-safety-net-be/842704/103 "2019-11-01T19:40:44Z")
[Here’s a great article](https://www.forbes.com/sites/rhockett/2019/01/16/the-green-new-deal-how-we-will-pay-for-it-isnt-a-thing-and-inflation-isnt-either/#2214a9ef4d7f) for the “pay for it” crowd from someone who knows his stuff. It’s specifically addressing issues around AOC’s Green New Deal (which is also Bernie’s policy proposal as well) but the underlying principles are the same for any sort of social benefit spending–and the bit about “Citizen Accounts” is pretty cool and the first time I’ve seen that idea floated. ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2019, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-should-the-social-safety-net-be/842704/104 "2019-11-01T19:41:46Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Why do you not want doctors to order tests for their patients? Isn’t that part of diagnostic health care? 😕 Sorry - prior posts suggest an implied “unnecessary”. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2019, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-should-the-social-safety-net-be/842704/105 "2019-11-01T19:56:05Z")
> [@PastTense](#): > > No. While everyone has an extra $1,000 UBI check only the lower income bracket will have a net increase in their income after taxes. Those in the middle income bracket will about break even and the upper income will be worse off–they will be paying more than $1,000 extra each month in taxes. > > A federal jobs guarantee would be a horrendous bureaucratic mess to implement. I think you’re missing my point. What I’m saying is that if everyone has another $12k (for example) added to their income, grocery stores, gas stations, restaurants, etc… are all going to raise their prices because they can, and because they know people have that extra cash to pay for stuff. What the market will bear and all that. And because people will have more money, the market will bear more in terms of higher prices. ---
**Author:** ![Oredigger77](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/oredigger77/32/3181_2.png) [@Oredigger77](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oredigger77)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2019, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-should-the-social-safety-net-be/842704/106 "2019-11-01T20:01:41Z")
> [@Ambivalid](#): > > Fair enough, just don’t lie to the American people when trying to sell your plan. That is what Yang is doing, imo. Also, the difference between disability payments for the disabled and a UBI for the lazy is that the UBI provides _additional_ options to what those lazy yet fully capable adults have. The lazy get 12,000/year without lifting a finger. If they are content with that lifestyle, ok, more power to them. But if living in abject poverty (which is what 12 grand/year falls in, if im not mistaken), they _can_ earn money on top of that guaranteed UBI, in order to better their quality of life and provide better security. > > Not so with the disabled. The disability payments, lets say 12 grand a year, are all they will ever receive. They cant _decide_ not to be disabled and become employed on top of that disability payment. And even if they could, anything more than a small, part time low paying job would cut them off from those payments, which is very much different than what UBI would mean for every other citizen. I haven’t looked it up for a single person but I developed the $12k per year for myself by taking poverty level for a family of 4 and dividing it by two. So two adults receiving their benefits even with two kids would be at the federal poverty level and doing anything would life them out of poverty. You could bump the amount by $1,000 per year per person so they would be above today’s poverty levels without working if you wanted to. Just to be clear getting a part time low paying job would not cut a disabled person off from anything in the UBI world. They would have to pay taxes on any income they earned but they won’t lose their disabled status because they won’t have a disabled status they can earn as much money as they are able with no penalty. There is no difference between them and any other citizen. You are correct that the profoundly disabled who cannot earn any month would receive only UBI (which has to be paired with universal healthcare to work) but again you should be arguing for a hire floor if that’s what you believe in UBI itself doesn’t seem to cause the problems you’re seeing. ---
**Author:** ![Oredigger77](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/oredigger77/32/3181_2.png) [@Oredigger77](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oredigger77)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2019, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-should-the-social-safety-net-be/842704/107 "2019-11-01T20:05:20Z")
I guess just to continue off of that thought one of the reasons I like UBI is that it can encourage risk taking by socializing some of the risk. If you are going to start a business and it takes 3 years to get to the point you can draw a salary that’s fine because you can still put a roof icer your head, food on the table and deal with getting sick. A UBI world should see more start ups and more small business which in the long term should grow the middle class. It will do that with the minimum amount of government intervention which is a good thing. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2019, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-should-the-social-safety-net-be/842704/108 "2019-11-01T21:19:59Z")
> [@Wrenching\_Spanners](#): > > Right. Because planned economies and government programs that mandate personal behaviour have such a great history of success. But hey, go ahead and let the government decide how much food you can buy. I’m sure they won’t expand that into other areas of control such as how often you can fly, or whether you can decide to send your kid to a private school. Never mind who you can sleep with, what books you can read, or if the brands you like have been approved by the state consumer oversight committee. Odd how the free enterprise paradise of the 19th century so loved by the right today had a lot more restrictions on personal freedom than any actual proposal today. I’m not sure how you get from making sure the poor have enough to eat from controlling what everyone eats. Care to show your work? ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2019, 8:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-should-the-social-safety-net-be/842704/109 "2019-11-03T08:35:00Z")
> [@bump](#): > > I think you’re missing my point. What I’m saying is that if everyone has another $12k (for example) added to their income, grocery stores, gas stations, restaurants, etc… are all going to raise their prices because they can, and because they know people have that extra cash to pay for stuff. What the market will bear and all that. And because people will have more money, the market will bear more in terms of higher prices. It largely depends on where the money comes from. If the excess spending power is sucked up via taxes, average price inflation might be zero. And, in any event, any price inflation will be limited: someone with $12,000 in new income will pay far FAR less than $12,000 in price hikes. Present company excepted of course, it gets tiresome to cope with innumeracy about economics. “Increase minimum wage by 10% and prices will rise 10%.” _WRONG._ “Increase taxes on the rich by 10% and (out of spite?) the rich will deliberately earn 10% less.” _WRONG._ ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2019, 10:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-should-the-social-safety-net-be/842704/110 "2019-11-03T10:36:08Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > There are, in fact, [a significant number of people that do _NOT_ “contribute to the payment”](https://www.marketwatch.com/story/81-million-americans-wont-pay-any-federal-income-taxes-this-year-heres-why-2018-04-16). This again. Those who do not make enough money to pay **Federal income tax** STILL have to pay **Medicare** and **Social Security** taxes. So, in fact, those poor folks DO pay into the social safety net (even as they might be using it) even if they get out of contributing to the general fund, military, etc. In addition, they also pay **State** and **local** taxes, which contribute to Medicaid and state-funded safety net programs. **So they do in fact “contribute to the payment”.** Poor people do NOT get a free ride unless they are so destitute as to have absolutely no income at all and exclusively eat in soup kitchens. Even then, any purchase on their part of, say, toilet paper or socks involves a tax. So stop pushing the notion that poor people don’t pay taxes. They do. It is factually incorrect and you have a better grasp of logic and reason than that. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2019, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-should-the-social-safety-net-be/842704/111 "2019-11-03T10:50:58Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Rather than giving them $1,000 in cold, hard cash, we provide them things like food stamps, and heating fuel assu]istance, and give them Section 8 housing, etc. In other words, it looks a lot more like the safety net we have today (less cash, more goods and services) than Yang’s envisioned UBI. How about we fully fund Section 8 so it’s actually useful? In my area there is a ten year waiting list for Section 8. And the list is closed so if you aren’t already on it you can’t even get in line. How the hell is that a “safety net” or in any way useful to someone who lost their livelihood last Tuesday? Why do you think we have so many goddamned working homeless even though Section 8 exists? It’s because in most places if you weren’t on the program a decade ago you aren’t able to get on it now. How about we remove some of the stupid-ass restrictions on food stamps? Are you aware that if you EVER had a felony conviction for drugs you can not get food stamps? But if your felony was assault with a deadly weapon, or bank robbery, or ponzi scheme targeting rich people or freakin’ _murder_ you can? WTF? Don’t former drug addicts need food, too? And there’s no time limit - convicted of drug dealing because you sold pot in college in 1979? You can’t get food stamps in 2019 _forty years later_ (A few states have loosened the rules a bit but in my state it’s zero tolerance - any drug conviction ever and you can _never_ get food stamps, ever, no matter how many years you’ve been a good citizen since.) Fuel assistance? To be honest, that’s one I haven’t researched much. The only thing I’m sure about is that the utility companies in this area can’t cut you off mid-winter. Of course, if you were cut off in summer and it’s going into winter you’re screwed, in that case they don’t have to turn on the heat. The social safety net is a joke - it’s underfunded and getting (and sometimes keeping) access is nightmare for most. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2019, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-should-the-social-safety-net-be/842704/112 "2019-11-03T12:02:27Z")
> [@Oredigger77](#): > > I can’t speak for Yang but in my ideal implementation, yes. We minimize the government’s intervention in people’s life, no telling them to buy brocolli instead of beer or live in a particular section of town, or don’t donate it to your church rather we let people decide what makes their lives better while giving them enough money to meet their basic needs. The nice thing about the monthly check is you always have the opportunity to do something different next month. Though I am intrigued by the daily payments though the administration costs may out weight the benefits. Right now, in order to qualify for benefits you have to be approved and that requires a case worker to look over evidence you provide. You have to re-certify for programs periodically (3 months, 6 months, yearly, etc.) which means going through a similar process over and over. Remove the need to qualify and you eliminate that part of the process and salaries for those folks (who may then need Universal Benefit or UB themselves). So yes, administration costs will go down. And if either monthly or daily payments don’t suit we could do every two weeks or weekly - employers find paying people on weekly, fortnight, or monthly schedules to work out OK so I don’t see why there would be a problem with UB. > [@PastTense](#): > > Don’t you understand that with food stamps these type people don’t spend those food stamps on food; they sell them at a discount for cash so they can go and buy booze or drugs or whatever? While SNAP/WIC fraud are not impossible it’s a lot harder than it used to be. Speaking as someone who has been on the program in the past decade and is now on the other side of the cash register serving customers who use those benefits. I confess I’m a bit conflicted over the folks who, say, purchase $50 in beverages with the intent to resell them at a profit. On the one hand, that’s not allowed under the rules. On the other hand, it _does_ show a capitalist, entrepreneurial spirit that is generally applauded in this country except, of course, if the entrepreneur is poor, then it’s bad. The fact that we provide the poor a means to purchase food but NOT the means to purchase the toilet paper they’ll eventually need as a consequence of eating is also a flaw in the system. While I’m sure there’s some nefarious use of such ill-gotten profit there’s also buying of basics like soap, toilet paper, and deodorant coming out of it, too. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > It’s precisely because SS & Medicare are funded by a separate payroll tax that most people seem to have more of a sense of having “earned” their SS. They DID pay into it (well, many of us did anyways) and it’s not really a “free” giveaway to them. WIC, SNAP, etc, and the other more traditional “welfare” components of the social safety net? The people taking advantage of them often haven’t paid for them. Given that 2/3 of the types of people who qualify for WIC (you know, Women, Infants, and Children) are minors and far too young to hold a job that “they don’t pay for it” is entirely unfair. This also plays to the myth that the majority of people on WIC, SNAP, etc. are lifetime welfare recipients, and that is also untrue. MOST people do not stay on those programs more than a year or two, before and after they most certainly DO pay into the system. Did I pay Federal Income tax the four years I collected SNAP? No. But I sure as hell paid them before AND I’m back to paying them now. I view my taxes that go towards the social safety net as premiums on an insurance policy, and in that frame of mind I want good social safety net benefits in case I ever need them (again). > [@Urbanredneck](#): > > Well that’s the thing, yes we should provide housing BUT, does it have to be in an expensive area like Portland? That depends. Is the intention to encourage people to work? If so, that’s a problem because the places where there’s work tend to have a higher cost of living. (A lot of that has to do with housing costs, but even with available housing cities tend to cost more to live in.) If you don’t care about encouraging work then providing housing, food, and medical care in the boondocks might be more cost-effective, but don’t be surprised if there’s little employment in those areas. > [@Urbanredneck](#): > > Yes, we should provide basic medical care, BUT, does that cover every medical test, drug, procedure and hospital stay a doctor or a person wants? (sidenote - my cousin in Denmark had to pay to take his wife to a private hospital for surgery when the government wait list was too long.) How about what is medically necessary based on current medical science/evidence based medicine? And I don’t see a problem with folks who can afford to pay out of pocket going to a private hospital to evade long waiting lines - they have the option and it reduces the waiting line for those who can’t afford to pay. The important thing is that _everyone can get into line_. At present in the US if you don’t have insurance you don’t even get to the waiting list. Your wait is _forever_. > [@Urbanredneck](#): > > Yes, we can provide free college, BUT, does that mean a person can stay in college for 10 years while only keeping a C average? Do we have to pay for every field of study? Do we have to pay for the most expensive colleges around including private? Do we hold colleges responsible for holding the line on spending? You know, those questions really deserve their own thread. Care to start one? > [@septimus](#): > > And — though I’ve been booed down for this opinion in the past — some of UBI benefits should be delivered in kind rather than in cash: access to cheap food and housing, education, healthcare, childcare. This approach would _reduce_ the total cost to taxpayers of UBI while _increasing_ the benefit to the needy. Um… yes and no. The US _used to_ distribute actual food. But, honestly, the current grocery infrastructure is already pretty efficient. The US moved to food stamps because providing an account to people so they could access the already-efficient grocery industry has worked out pretty well. No need for a parallel distribution system. Grocers also benefit from the system. I see no reason to change that. The government taking on food distribution is NOT likely to be cheaper or more efficient. Healthcare? There are literally hundreds of countries to look at for a distribution system that works. Time to stop saying the US is “exceptional” and learn something from other people. Childcare? Sure, let’s do government sponsored childcare the way we do government sponsored public education. Paid professionals, oversight, everyone has access to childcare. The private sector providers will likely be luxurious but parents who work will have a place to take their kids that is safe and won’t cost more than what they’re earning from their job(s). Housing… I’ve worked for landlords. Section 8 has issues. In order for that to really work it has to work for both sides. Landlords need to be able to make at least a modest profit from the buildings they rent and all too often I’ve heard they can’t, Section 8 means they lose money. Under a subsidized housing system there has to be regular payments (locally, aside from Section 8 local county housing aid around here is notorious for late payments. MONTHS late payments.), maybe some other incentives. Reduced property taxes? Some sort of insurance policy regarding damage by renters? Certainly, having the government as the landlord has resulted in some epic disasters as well. This is another topic that deserves its own thread. I dunno - _maybe_ a plastic card (like is already used for many benefits) with accounts for 1) food (like current SNAP/WIC), 2) housing, and 3) weekly or month cash stipend? > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > This doesn’t actually conflict with what I said. The “bare minumum” food, shelter, and medical care could be prison-quality rations, a tiny concrete room with a small bed and a toilet, and prison-quality health care. The sad thing is that “prison-quality health care” is superior to what millions of American citizens currently have access to… > [@msmith537](#): > > Of course it sounds good to you. You get to replace your job of processing paperwork for poor people receiving benefits or whatever with a check for doing essentially nothing. > > For someone like me, I just see having to work harder because more hands are in my pocket. I think you’re ignoring that the “check for doing nothing” will likely be considerably smaller than his current salary. > [@Oredigger77](#): > > Why? I don’t see a reason the disabled should lead a better life than the lazy. The idea here is to create a floor that gives people an acceptable minimum life. That means that some people, either through their own fault or through no fault of their own, will live at the floor level. After that most people will work to create a better life for themselves than that floor level not everyone will or will want to do that and that is OK. > > It is a reasonable argument where to set that minimum acceptable living standard. I guess it is also reasonable argument that we should provide a better lifestyle to those who are at the minimum through no fault of there own though once we get to the point of deciding who is there through their own fault or not were back to a higher level of government intervention that I would prefer. While that argument seems to make sense on the surface it ignores something most able-bodied people never consider: It costs more to be disabled. If you need accessible housing your housing options are more limited - my late spouse in his later years had trouble with stairs so we had a first-floor residence. Someone who needs an interior space able to accommodate a wheelchair has fewer housing options. Just two examples. My late spouse would have had problems with my current residence - a flight and a half of stairs would be a problem. Ambivalid might, because he’s in good shape and _that stubborn_, be able to pull himself up the stairs and into my apartment (guess I’d have to carry his chair up the stairs behind him) but I don’t see him doing that on a regular basis and there’s no elevator. The doorways aren’t wide enough for a wheelchair. Two sharp right angles would make getting into the bathroom somewhere between extremely difficult and impossible. Not that I’m expecting him to visit the area, but if Ambivalid did pass through Northwest Indiana we might meet up at a restaurant but he will never visit my living space because it’s not accessible. In looking for alternative living spaces I did look at places more accessible - they uniformly cost $500-1000 more per month. This difference is further exacerbated because, as an able-bodied adult, I can opt for a less expensive residence with stairs instead of an elevator, narrow doors and hallways, and a cramped bathroom to keep my housing costs down and a disabled person may not have that option. My late spouse, with his typical bluntness and dark humor, called that the “gimp tax”. That’s just the housing. The disabled often have medical costs the rest of us don’t (it costs me nothing to pee. The late spouse needed a catheter and associated paraphernalia to keep things clean. As just one example.) Now, if we had universal medical coverage that took care of those on-going costs - catheters for the bladder impaired, daily insulin for those diabetics needing it, etc. - it would be less of an issue. There are also more episodic costs - those that can’t walk need wheelchairs. Those missing a limb might need a prosthesis. Hearing aids. Aids for the vision impaired. These cost money _above_ the base costs of being a living human being. So… I would say that the disabled should have these basic costs covered, if you’re covering basic needed costs for everyone else. Because those costs aren’t really optional for the disabled. You’d basically say “everyone gets these basic needs covered. And if you have an additional basic need - like needing a wheelchair - you will also have that covered”. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2019, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-should-the-social-safety-net-be/842704/113 "2019-11-03T13:41:41Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > 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. A little bit of laziness is tolerable; by far the most destructive acts of foolishness are committed by those with disproportionate wealth and power. Your average street-dwelling drug addict didn’t cause the Great Recession, for instance. Nor is he responsible for the trillion dollar deficits that will inevitably bankrupt entitlement programs. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2019, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-should-the-social-safety-net-be/842704/114 "2019-11-03T14:25:24Z")
> [@Oredigger77](#): > > I don’t see a reason the disabled should lead a better life than the lazy. And the rest of us do. And we don’t need to convince you. I want a program that helps maintain _my_ standard of living should I become disabled. Not one that takes money away from working me and gives it to people who choose not to work. ---
**Author:** ![Oredigger77](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/oredigger77/32/3181_2.png) [@Oredigger77](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oredigger77)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2019, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-should-the-social-safety-net-be/842704/115 "2019-11-03T14:30:17Z")
**Broomstick** I do understand that there are increased costs for being disabled which is why I mentioned that UBI needs to be paired with universal healthcare. $12,000/year isn’t going to be meeting the medical expenses of a woman who is pregnant let alone someone in a persistent vegetative state. In my mind UBI is for daily life of a “normal” person if you have a medical necessity for a guide dog (with food and car of the dog) or a wheelchair or special housing that needs to come out of the healthcare fund. The healthcare system is also going to have to have administrative costs that aren’t there on the UBI side. We need to make sure you need a wheelchair or a power chair and that doctors aren’t prescribing wider hallways because you want a bigger house (accessible house need more sqft in hallways and bathrooms than is standard which tends to mean larger sqft overall). I think how to handle people with expensive medical care is an important conversation in the implementation of universal healthcare care but I haven’t come up with a good solution aside from being in favor of Death Panels. ---
**Author:** ![Oredigger77](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/oredigger77/32/3181_2.png) [@Oredigger77](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oredigger77)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2019, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-should-the-social-safety-net-be/842704/116 "2019-11-03T14:50:32Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > And the rest of us do. And we don’t need to convince you. I want a program that helps maintain _my_ standard of living should I become disabled. Not one that takes money away from working me and gives it to people who choose not to work. Do the rest of us, whomever that may be? From what I can tell currently society is ok with you being driven out of your home if you become disabled to die penny less on the street. While the lazy are just forced to work crappy jobs and be fired on a regular basis. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2019, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-should-the-social-safety-net-be/842704/117 "2019-11-03T14:54:58Z")
> [@Oredigger77](#): > > Do the rest of us, whomever that may be? The paucity of support for UBI is consistent with that conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![Oredigger77](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/oredigger77/32/3181_2.png) [@Oredigger77](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oredigger77)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2019, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-should-the-social-safety-net-be/842704/118 "2019-11-03T15:51:51Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > The paucity of support for UBI is consistent with that conclusion. Ahh, rectally derived. I hope you’re all comfortable up there. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2019, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-should-the-social-safety-net-be/842704/119 "2019-11-03T16:00:44Z")
> [@Oredigger77](#): > > Ahh, rectally derived. I hope you’re all comfortable up there. Again, we don’t have to convince you of anything. You’re the one advocating a system that will leave me with $12k instead of $30k. So that people who don’t want to work can get the money instead. If you can make a strong enough argument, people will support your plan. We haven’t seen that yet. ---
**Author:** ![Ambivalid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a5b964/32.png) [@Ambivalid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ambivalid)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2019, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-should-the-social-safety-net-be/842704/120 "2019-11-03T19:48:05Z")
So am i correct in my understanding that a disabled person currently receiving approximately $1,000/month now in disability payments would, under a UBI program, not only not see any additional money, or even break even, but would be actually hit with a tax bill for that heretofore untaxed $12,000/year? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-should-the-social-safety-net-be/842704.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-should-the-social-safety-net-be/842704.md?page=7)