It’s because of this narrative that poor people are lazy or making bad choices, that’s why they’re poor, and can’t be trusted to make the “proper” choices or to work. The current system is based on the notion that if you just make people miserable enough they’ll get off their lazy asses and find a job. Even if there are no jobs to be had, or no jobs they’re qualified for, or the’re considered too old for the training that would make them qualified, or they’re busting their asses looking for work. Just tighten the screws down and a job will appear.
As a result, we get rules that cut benefits immediately if a person gets a raise or windfall (the “windfall” penalty is especially harsh in my opinion).
The rule is against hot food. It’s to prevent people from using SNAP to eat in restaurants. It was put in place before hot rotisserie chicken was common in grocery stores.
Slightly off topic but I just wondered how many American’s today know that President Nixon, that well known leftist, proposed basic income in 1969 and actually got it through the house. If that’s not a sign of how much US politics has changed I don’t know what is.
Apparently (I don’t have primary sources for this) he was persuaded to drop it by one of his right-wing aides by citing the example of Speenhamland as a case where it was tried and was a disaster, though this has now been shown to be wrong (both as an example of basic income and that it was a disaster) and the Royal Comission Report was entirely cooked up.
Graduated programs avoid “benefit cliffs”, where you don’t lose* everything* by earning an additional dollar. They do, however, increase implicit marginal tax rates. No program does so in a one-to-one ratio, where an additional $100 earned reduces the benefit by $100, i.e. a 100% implicit marginal tax. However, one can get close by stacking programs. And for SNAP, specifically, earned income is treated more favorably than other income. So with money from a lawsuit, YMMV.
A one-to-one program has the benefit of setting some thre**shold of what people need* and not giving them any more than that. However, it also removes the incentive to earn just a little bit more. I just can’t muster much objection to someone at 151% of the poverty line getting something they don’t need* if it means avoiding high implicit marginal rates or a cliff.
*A somewhat arbitrary number IMO
-±±±±
I was negative about basic income earlier because the proposal was to pay for it, in part, by eliminating SSDI. I do not support this. If you want to tax me more, fine; I can afford it. But I don’t want to make the disabled worse off than they are today. I prefer taxes for benefits programs over, say, increasing the minimum wage massively.
I certainly agree with you that not all poor people are poor for the reasons you note. A couple you forgot:
-low intelligence doesn’t help. Lacking any other advantages, someone in the bottom quarter of intelligence (but above intellectual disability) will have a harder time in many respects than someone in the top quarter.
-also poor role models. The child born to a substance abuser/abusive/absent/etc parent faces horribly greater challenges.
BUT - (and you knew I had a big but ;)) - SOME poor people ARE poor because of their lousy choices, and because they would rather put effort into obtaining government subsidies than putting in a solid work week. Often one pays overly for past bad decisions. One felony conviction might fuck your employment options for the rest of your life. We might disagree with what percentage of the poor are lazy and stupid, but some are. And what as a society do we wish to do with them?
The same way I said before about “disabled” people, I prefer a system that does not attempt to distinguish WHY one is disadvantaged. Trying to do so is problematic (as I tried to suggest, unsuccessfully). Later, someone offered the adjective “profound” disability. Is that moving the goal posts from “disability” to “profound disability”? Who gets to determine whether a disability is “profound” or not? Instead, I say pay everyone a basic income without making an assessment (or judgment) of why. AND, allow them health care and vocational training/education resources.
I don’t understand how that system “makes the disabled worse.” In fact, I contend that the CURRENT system makes the “impaired” worse because, instead of saying that an individual has a challenge that society will help them in overcoming as best possible, it says “Don’t even try. You are disabled, and will likely remain so until you die.”
People saying that the disabled deserve something more than UBI + health care impress me as the common situation - so typical of humans - where they say, “Yeah, help everyone, but help ME a little more!”
I think it amusing that I am being criticized for being insufficiently compassionate when I’m expressing support for public services FAR exceeding what the US offers today!
Someone earlier was proposing basic income of $12k.
That’s not what SSA tells me when I log into my account with them. Log in, click Estimated Benefits on the right, and scroll down to “If you become disabled right now your estimated payment would be:”
Punching
maximum SSDI
into Google suggests it tops out around $34k.
I do not want to eliminate this program to fund a $12k basic income.
OK - I’ll grant that. That was why I added my qualifier (“I’m pretty sure.”) I will acknowledge that I was wrong, and that SOME SS DIB recipients make well over $12k. (I stick with my statement that NO SSI recipient makes that.)
Now check what the AVERAGE recipient gets. Haven’t checked lately, but I bet it is in the mid-teens.
Let me guess - you make a pretty good buck, right? So I bet your expected disability benefits - as well as future retirement bennies - are near the top of the range.
Let me offer another presumption (which you might not share). Since you have whatever it takes to have been a relatively high-earing individual, you are better situated to adapt to becoming disabled. (Acknowledging that “disability” can take many forms, and be of varying “profundity.”)
Also, when discussing issues like this, I think we have to assume a utilitarian, best for the most - approach, rather than what is best for you or any other individual. I think the fact that you personally would be disadvantaged is really irrelevant WRT whether UBI is better for society as a whole.
I assume a similar approach to healthcare. I prefer a system where EVERYONE can get basic health care, even if that means some older folk (whatever their wealth) don’t get subsidized organ transplants or other costly treatment. And I don’t care how much they feel they “paid into the system.” Then, the sticky point is, what do we do w/ the child who is born profoundly disabled such that they will never be independent…
Public policy is tough. Someone’s ox generally gets gored. IME, most people are fine w/ that, so long as it isn’t THEIRS.
Yes, it’s pretty clear at this point that you are writing on a topic without first having done your homework. Not even the barest minimum effort of typing three words into Google.
And thus your presumptions about me are irrelevant. And I never argued that my personal situation was relevant; I brought it up because you couldn’t be bothered to look up SSDI payments prior to posting, and my personal situation means your guesswork was incorrect, as you acknowledge.
This isn’t about my ox. This is about a proposal that takes money from people who can’t work and gives it to people who choose not to.
It’s not a binary scenario. You can have UBI and leave insurance systems (e.g. unemployment, SSDI) intact, perhaps with benefits reductions. You can tax non-disabled me more. Etc. But I do not support making disabled people worse off.
I’m curious, do you consider a UBI with the addition of a medical supplement for the disabled and chronically ill-one that is restricted to paying for medical supplies and additional costs of living only-to be some sort of hand out that would create an unfair system tilted towards the disabled and sick?
To be clear, the problems i see re the UBI and the disabled dont apply to me personally. I actually would personally see a UBI as a positive in my life. It would allow me to pursue full time employment without disqualifying myself from the money i currently receive in disability benefits. However, I also acknowledge that i am on the upper rungs of ability amongst the disabled community. Many are not as fortunate as I am. It is these folks for whom i am advocating.
So just to clarify you would support UBI at a $34K payout annually? I don’t necessarily agree with that but I’m trying to understand your argument. You have posted a bunch of hard to parse arguments which it makes it hard to tell if we agree or disagree.
Is your goal to ensure that the disabled have no drop in standard of living going forward or that you preferential benefit in disabled over all others or do you just want to maintain the status quo because the current system is perfect.
In theory we are discussing the size and structure of our social safety net and I have no idea what you opinion is.
In this thread the $12K came from two sources primarily Yang’s proposal for UBI from his presidential campaign and secondarily from my opinion that a good target for UBI is to ensure that the prototypical family of 4 should not live in poverty.
I can’t support or dismiss a plan on a single number. A $34k plan would remove one of my objections (disabled people being worse off). However, I’m not sure how the overall financing works at that level. I’m pretty sure we couldn’t implement a $100k plan, and a $1k plan is useless. The middle ground is complicated.
The status quo is not perfect. I believe a plan that makes disabled people worse off is worse than the status quo. Therefore the options to have a better plan than the status quo are: UBI+ (UBI while preserving some insurance programs, not necessarily in their entirety), or leave the current system intact with some fixes based on whatever it is that people are trying to fix.
I’m not beholden to any particular setup and not opposed to UBI. However, I don’t know how to make the UBI math work out. That may be to limited creativity on my part.
Re: poverty lines, the HHS thresholds start with $12,490 for an individual and add $4,420 for each addition to the household. Add 50% for SNAP thresholds. USCB has slightly different numbers.
So for a family of four, assuming the kids don’t get anything (per AY), it would be set at $13k, so you were close. However, today, that family would still qualify for SNAP if they made $26k. You’d need to bump the UBI to over $19k to get them over today’s SNAP threshold. Higher if they have more kids.
And re-looking AY’s proposal, it doesn’t look like he plans to eliminate SSDI. So if were arguing AY’s plan, my objection doesn’t stand. If we’re arguing to remove all benefits, then it does.
