# 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:** 7
**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, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-should-the-social-safety-net-be/842704/121 "2019-11-03T20:01:32Z")
> [@Ambivalid](#): > > 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? That can’t be right, can it? I must be confusing something here ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2019, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-should-the-social-safety-net-be/842704/122 "2019-11-03T23:14:47Z")
> [@Ambivalid](#): > > That can’t be right, can it? I must be confusing something here I’m not up on the various universal income schemes, but I’m not sure you are off. At least in my understanding. One huge benefit of universal income is not needing the administrative bureaucracy to figure out who is deserving/in need of assistance, and who isn’t. Think if the savings, if we could drastically reduce SSA expenditures - not just on the disability side. (Of course, then all THOSE folk - including me - would be out of work!) I imagine a primary reason most disabled people would receive a payment (at least social Security - VA impresses me as something else) is because the disabled person is considered to be in need because they are presumably incapable of performing most work. Are they more in need than just some poor person who has difficulty competing in today’s economy? Or what do you think the reason for making payments to a disabled person? I’m assuming the disabled person’s health care would be subsidized in some manner as well. Do you think a disabled person ought to receive twice the income other needy people are receiving? If so, why? ---
**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 4, 2019, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-should-the-social-safety-net-be/842704/123 "2019-11-04T00:48:29Z")
> [@Ambivalid](#): > > 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? Nope in most UBI schemes the payments is untaxed. Any additional money earned is taxed at a higher rate than it is now. ---
**Author:** ![Ambivalid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a5b964/32.png) [@Ambivalid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ambivalid)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2019, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-should-the-social-safety-net-be/842704/124 "2019-11-04T01:05:07Z")
Opportunity. Or lack thereof. The disabled are afforded no opportunity to improve their lives with a UBI. And what are we defining as other “needy” people? Poor people certainly deserve _an additional_ $1,000/month, on top of anything whatsoever they may be bringing in as income now. Necessity. The poor are poor without a UBI, which is administered in order to, in part, help lift them out of poverty. The disabled, without disability payments, are penniless and destitute and on a fast track to death, frankly. Those payments arent an adequate means to support a decent life. They are just better the alternative of letting them die in the streets. And not only would a UBI do absolutely nothing to improve the lives of the disabled (unlike any other group or demographic of “needy” people)… ETA: i see that evidently the UBI is generally untaxed. I think taxes re this issue are confusing and not at all worked out yet. ---
**Author:** ![Ambivalid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a5b964/32.png) [@Ambivalid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ambivalid)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2019, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-should-the-social-safety-net-be/842704/125 "2019-11-04T01:25:21Z")
> [@Dinsdale](#): > > Do you think a disabled person ought to receive twice the income other needy people are receiving? If so, why? > **[Does the Basic Income overlook disabled individuals? | Basic Income News](https://basicincome.org/news/2016/04/does-the-basic-income-overlook-disabled-individuals/)** > > Just because someone is disabled doesn’t mean they’re any less of a person. Most disabled individuals can still work jobs, get into Disabled Dating, have families, go places, etc. However, society has a tendency to discriminate against them and... This article addresses criticisms similar to my own by suggesting that the truly disabled be provided with an additional supplemental payment in addition to the basic income to handle much of those costs that are unique to those disabled people. [Quote/] For instance, an additional supplement for the disabled could be granted based on the severity of the disability. The current structure and eligibility requirements for disability insurance from the U.S. Social Service Administration could be utilized to determine the amount of additional aid. There are three potential options for such a supplement: Provide a simple cash transfer that will allow the individual to spend the money accordingly. Provide a cash transfer to an account modeled on the Health Savings Account (HAS) structure. HSAs restrict account purchases to medicinal goods and services, but an individual can generally purchase these goods and services from any provider they see fit. This structure may capture the best of both worlds; it would prevent fraud given that those who are not truly disabled would be unlikely to apply for a supplement that is restricted to purchasing goods and services needed for disabled individuals, while also retaining account holders’ flexibility in choice of private providers. Expand in-kind services that cater to disabled individuals. While specific in-kind services that should be expanded are beyond the scope of this article, it is almost certain that existing federal and state services for the disabled would not be altered if a UBI was implemented. [Quote/] ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2019, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-should-the-social-safety-net-be/842704/126 "2019-11-04T13:00:57Z")
I’ll step out of this discussion. My experience w/ disability benefits has strongly colored my opinions in ways that might likely interfere w/ polite discussion. I suggest, tho, assessing “the severity of [one’s] disability” would likely be a less than straightforward matter. Or, if you know a straightforward way to assess the severity of people alleging migraines, fibromyalgia, depression, anxiety, PTSD … - please let me know. ---
**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 4, 2019, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-should-the-social-safety-net-be/842704/127 "2019-11-04T14:20:52Z")
Perhaps, if people had a means to survive in a legal manner that _didn’t_ require them to claim disability to get help we’d see fewer people attempting to get such a label, meaning there would be a lot less work to determine who is actually suffering from a problem, and what sort, which would make appropriate treatment easier to determine. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2019, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-should-the-social-safety-net-be/842704/128 "2019-11-04T14:56:55Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Perhaps, if people had a means to survive in a legal manner that _didn’t_ require them to claim disability to get help we’d see fewer people attempting to get such a label, meaning there would be a lot less work to determine who is actually suffering from a problem, and what sort, which would make appropriate treatment easier to determine. We already have that - it’s called “getting a job if you aren’t ‘really’ disabled”. Plus it kind of misses the point - if I don’t want to give money to people who aren’t disabled, then giving money to people whether they are disabled or not doesn’t address the issue, because I am giving them money anyway. I have no objection to giving money to people who are really disabled and can’t work. The problem in my view is people who are sort of on the margin - they don’t want to work, but they aren’t disabled enough that they couldn’t work if they had to. It’s like the dire predictions we heard during welfare reform back in 1996. It certainly wasn’t perfect, but > [@](#): > > Welfare and poverty rates both declined during the late 1990s, leading many commentators to declare that the legislation was a success. One editorial in The New Republic opined, “A broad consensus now holds that welfare reform was certainly not a disaster—and that it may, in fact, have worked much as its designers had hoped”. [Cite](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act). Of course there was [criticism](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/08/21/welfare-reform-20-years-later/88389666/) and it didn’t help everybody > [@](#): > > From 1996 to 2000, employment rates among never-married mothers shot from 63% to 76%, according to the non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). Additionally, both poverty rates among families with single mothers and overall poverty rates dropped. > > “The welfare reform legislation moved us in the right direction by being much more aggressive about employment for the single mother population,” said Robert Doar, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute who was formerly the commissioner of welfare in New York City. > > Employment and poverty rates have leveled off in the long term, which has resulted in disagreement among policy experts about just how effective TANF has been in increasing employment, though most agree that it at least helped move the needle. > > Where the law has failed, experts say, is by leaving behind those at the very bottom — the group of people in deep poverty who typically haven’t been able to find work, like McCray. I expect UBI would be much the same except in the opposite direction, depending on how it is implemented. Regards, Shodan ---
**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 4, 2019, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-should-the-social-safety-net-be/842704/129 "2019-11-04T15:35:57Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > We already have that - it’s called “getting a job if you aren’t ‘really’ disabled”. I’d be more willing to buy into that if discrimination against the disabled didn’t exist - and it very much does. The main reason my late spouse went into business for himself was because, despite a master’s degree and 15 years experience in the work world (back in the 1980’s when the economy was better, and let’s just ignore the years of abuse and harassment he endured from a bigotted asshole boss) no one in this area would hire him. A man who started his own business and worked 12-14 hours days for years can hardly be accused of being lazy, wouldn’t you agree? Yet no one in this area would hire him even part time. Hence, forced to go into business for himself. Getting financing was also a nightmare - he was flat out told by more than one potential lender that they couldn’t risk lending money to someone disabled (yes, I know that’s illegal. It still very much happens and that was only the two willing to say it to his face). It is hard to start your own business. It is even harder if you’re disabled. So, yes, there can be people, shall we say, partially disabled, able to do some types of work but they fight discrimination. And if (as an example) the only sort of work you can do is “Wal-Mart greeter” and they aren’t hiring greeters you’re screwed - deemed able to work, but no jobs are available for you. Sure, Stephen Hawking managed to work and have a career despite being completely physically disabled, but there’s only one Lucasian Chair for Mathematics so that’s not going to help other other kajillion quadriplegics out there, never mind the paucity of people with the academic and intellectual qualifications for the job. Then there are ways of excluding the disabled from the hiring process - such as mandating all employees without exception be able to lift 50 pounds, even if they work desk jobs where that will not ever actually be required. Restrictions on bathroom breaks, which makes things very difficult for those with disabilities that affect bladder and bowel control even if they can walk and use their hands and brains. Requiring all employees to be able to make and receive phone calls even if their position does not have a phone and would never require it (excludes the deaf very nicely) So if the playing field actually _was_ level we’d see a lot more partially disabled people employed (perhaps even fully employed). Part of the disagreement between you and me is that you have a very negative view of people - your assumption is that they’re lazy fakers until proved otherwise. I, on the other hand, am much more open to the notion that the disabled actually do exist. > [@Shodan](#): > > I have no objection to giving money to people who are really disabled and can’t work. The problem in my view is people who are sort of on the margin - they don’t want to work, but they aren’t disabled enough that they couldn’t work if they had to. IF they can find non-biased places to interview. IF there are job openings for jobs they can actually do. We saw this in my are in 2007-2008 - even the able-bodied with years of solid work experience were laid off and _could not find work_ There were 5-6 job seekers for every open position for several years. In that situation, if an employer has a choice between hiring someone able-bodied or someone disabled which do you think they’re going to choose, in reality? Surprise, surprise - claims of disability shot up. What a surprise - since adults without dependent children did NOT qualify for any sort of cash aid or housing assistance, and even the bare-bones Medicaid health insurance required premiums and copays from the poor, the ONLY way for these people with physical problems to have any hope of keeping a roof overhead was to try to get classified as “disabled”. And meanwhile the population in homeless shelters and people sleeping in cars or crashing on other peoples’ couches jumped up, because for awhile _no matter how hard to tried_ it was extremely difficult to get hired. Incentivizing people to work ONLY works if there are jobs to be had. With increasing automation this will only get worse. ---
**Author:** ![Wrenching\_Spanners](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ecb155/32.png) [@Wrenching\_Spanners](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrenching_Spanners)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2019, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-should-the-social-safety-net-be/842704/130 "2019-11-04T16:04:19Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > 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? Sure. Go to your local supermarket. You’ll find thousands of different items for sale. The vast majority of them are going to be competitively priced. Many of them will actually be underpriced as they’re used as loss leaders to get people in the door, while the supermarket tries to entice consumers into buying goods with higher profit margins. Prices in supermarkets aren’t high due to a demand curve based on excess consumption and waste. Generally, they’re not high in the first place. The free market is working fine when it comes to the distribution and sales of food. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2019, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-should-the-social-safety-net-be/842704/131 "2019-11-04T16:05:19Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > … Incentivizing people to work ONLY works if there are jobs to be had. > > With increasing automation this will only get worse. Unemployment is 3.6%. Lack of available jobs _might_ become a problem in the future, but it’s certainly not one today. ---
**Author:** ![PastTense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pasttense/32/14550_2.png) [@PastTense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PastTense)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2019, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-should-the-social-safety-net-be/842704/132 "2019-11-04T16:31:36Z")
No. The 3.6% figure depends entirely on how it is measured. For example a lot of people give up looking for work if they keep trying and trying but are unsuccessful. For an alternative measure of unemployment look at: [http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate\_data/unemployment-charts](http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts) ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2019, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-should-the-social-safety-net-be/842704/133 "2019-11-04T16:48:59Z")
> [@PastTense](#): > > No. The 3.6% figure depends entirely on how it is measured. For example a lot of people give up looking for work if they keep trying and trying but are unsuccessful. For an alternative measure of unemployment look at: > [Alternate Unemployment Charts](http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts) With all due respect to John Williams’ “Shadow Government Statistics” CT-looking website and the “SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate”, the BLS measures the [labor force participation rate](https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-labor-force-participation-rate.htm) too (which, consequently, has been on a slight upward trend during President Trump’s administration, after a precipitous decline during the two previous administrations. ---
**Author:** ![PastTense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pasttense/32/14550_2.png) [@PastTense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PastTense)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2019, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-should-the-social-safety-net-be/842704/134 "2019-11-04T17:04:58Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Of course there was [criticism](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/08/21/welfare-reform-20-years-later/88389666/) and it didn’t help everybody I expect UBI would be much the same except in the opposite direction, depending on how it is implemented. Right now the poor can get from zero to several social safety net programs (for example if you respond “anyone can get food stamps if the have no income”–that is false. Lots of people have used up their eligibility). But if you get multiple benefits you can easily run into a situation while a limited increase a year in income can cost you much more in lost benefits–when you are getting Medicaid, child care for your children, food stamps, family assistance program, public housing, etc. These are poverty traps. Or suppose you are on SSI. Do you take a job? But what if you lose it? Remember the difficulty you had getting on in the first place? Better safe than sorry, so you don’t take that job. Conversely with a combination of UBI and universal health care you don’t have poverty traps, you don’t have these risks. ---
**Author:** ![Wrenching\_Spanners](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ecb155/32.png) [@Wrenching\_Spanners](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrenching_Spanners)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2019, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-should-the-social-safety-net-be/842704/135 "2019-11-04T17:09:51Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Perhaps, if people had a means to survive in a legal manner that _didn’t_ require them to claim disability to get help we’d see fewer people attempting to get such a label, meaning there would be a lot less work to determine who is actually suffering from a problem, and what sort, which would make appropriate treatment easier to determine. Is your assertion that a substantial number of people who choose to receive disability payments, if they became eligible for UBI plus disability, would decline the disability payments because they believed the UBI was sufficient for their needs? With no “stick” involved to discourage them from applying for disability plus UBI? Either I’m misunderstanding your post, or I believe you’re underestimating how many disability recipients believe a disability payment is an entitlement. ---
**Author:** ![Translucent\_Daydream](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/translucent_daydream/32/16170_2.png) [@Translucent\_Daydream](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Translucent_Daydream)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2019, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-should-the-social-safety-net-be/842704/136 "2019-11-04T17:11:33Z")
> [@Wrenching\_Spanners](#): > > Is your assertion that a substantial number of people who choose to receive disability payments, if they became eligible for UBI plus disability, would decline the disability payments because they believed the UBI was sufficient for their needs? With no “stick” involved to discourage them from applying for disability plus UBI? Either I’m misunderstanding your post, or I believe you’re underestimating how many disability recipients believe a disability payment is an entitlement. The UBI wouldn’t go away if they took a job. Disability goes away, even if you only had the job for a week. ---
**Author:** ![PastTense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pasttense/32/14550_2.png) [@PastTense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PastTense)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2019, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-should-the-social-safety-net-be/842704/137 "2019-11-04T17:14:56Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > With all due respect to John Williams’ “Shadow Government Statistics” CT-looking website and the “SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate”, the BLS measures the [labor force participation rate](https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-labor-force-participation-rate.htm) too (which, consequently, has been on a slight upward trend during President Trump’s administration, after a precipitous decline during the two previous administrations. There has been no significant change in the social safety net during the Trump administration. The Democrats have blocked Trump proposals. Any increase in labor force participation are a result of the continuation of the Obama recovery and Trump’s massive budget deficits. ---
**Author:** ![Translucent\_Daydream](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/translucent_daydream/32/16170_2.png) [@Translucent\_Daydream](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Translucent_Daydream)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2019, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-should-the-social-safety-net-be/842704/138 "2019-11-04T17:17:08Z")
I think that there is a group of people here who think that people on disability like being on disability. My experience in talking to those on disability is that they would love to be able to work _when they can_ but can’t guarantee that they can keep the job up, even if its a part time thing. I worked with a guy at Wal-Mart when I was in college that had fucked himself in similar fashion. He had some sort of disease, but he could work sporadically. He thought he was getting better, but relapsed and had to call out. Wal-Mart, being themselves, fired his ass because he couldn’t get into his doctor to get a note that said “Homey’s disease flared up, he can’t work today”. That doctor’s note would have cost him $215, since he didn’t have health insurance (went off of disability). Since he took the job in he first place, he was off of disability. That guy had to sell everything he owned. I know this because I bought a few records off of him so he could keep his lights on. He told me he regretted trying to work again, should have stayed on disability. I can’t for the life of me remember what he had, it was something that made him dizzy when he was standing up. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2019, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-should-the-social-safety-net-be/842704/139 "2019-11-04T17:25:00Z")
> [@PastTense](#): > > There has been no significant change in the social safety net during the Trump administration. The Democrats have blocked Trump proposals. Any increase in labor force participation are a result of the continuation of the Obama recovery and Trump’s massive budget deficits. The unemployment rate, and the labor force participation rate, hinge on economic performance, not the social safety net. During Obama, the economy did badly, and so labor force participation rate declined and unemployment was high. During President Trump’s administration, the economy has been doing very well, so labor force participation rate has increased and unemployment is low. I credit at least some of that to the Tax Cuts & Jobs Act that President Trump and Republicans in Congress passed (over strident dem opposition). ---
**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 4, 2019, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-should-the-social-safety-net-be/842704/140 "2019-11-04T17:37:09Z")
> [@Wrenching\_Spanners](#): > > Sure. Go to your local supermarket. You’ll find thousands of different items for sale. The vast majority of them are going to be competitively priced. Many of them will actually be underpriced as they’re used as loss leaders to get people in the door, while the supermarket tries to entice consumers into buying goods with higher profit margins. Prices in supermarkets aren’t high due to a demand curve based on excess consumption and waste. Generally, they’re not high in the first place. The free market is working fine when it comes to the distribution and sales of food. So, how are the liberal elite going to reduce the choice in supermarkets and/or increase prices again? And BTW, urban groceries have less choice and higher prices than suburban ones do, and I’ve never heard the liberal elite consider that as a plus. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-should-the-social-safety-net-be/842704.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-should-the-social-safety-net-be/842704.md?page=8)