Partially funding a $12,000 per adult “basic income” with a flat 10% value-added tax could conceivably raise prices by 10% across the board.
~Max
Yeah, that’s pretty dumb. To say the least.
~Max
Right, well, so much for my intention to stay out of this. :rolleyes:
Deciding what ought to be done WRT disabled persons is HUGELY complicated. For one thing, people (and organizations) have countless different understandings of what the term “disabled” means.
Also, as with any group of individuals, it is impossible to think of “the disabled” as some group that shares certain attributes. What is the commonalty between some person who worked all of their life before they got paralyzed in an accident, and a younger person who has never worked, but claims they are depressed? I’m not making any judgments about either example - just observing that their conditions/needs/motivations are likely quite dissimilar.
Having worked with SS disability programs for 30+ years, I assure you that there are SOME persons who are very much NOT interested in working, and who perceive disability benefits as only free money. We can debate the percentage of various populations that are like this, but if you deny that such people exist, well, we probably cannot discuss any aspect of this. Unless you deal with people living on the margins of society, you may be unaware of the thousands and thousands of people who are living in unconventional arrangements, where a number of people are subsisting off of one or more individuals’ benefit payments, possibly supplemented by temp or under-the-table work. Possibly workers’ comp, SS or VA disability, child’s SSI, unemployment, etc. To at least some of these people, a disability check is just $ - NOT a way to make themselves more productive, or to address costs related to physical or mental impairments.
Another factor - there are at least SOME “disabled” persons who consider themselves extremely entitled, and (IMO) desire an official designation of themselves as disabled to either afford them some preferential treatment, or excuse their personal shortcomings. AGAIN - this is DEFINITELY not all persons who consider themselves disabled. But if you deny that such people exist, well, we likely cannot communicate. And we haven’t even mentioned the enablers…
Making it even more complicated, how are disability programs intertwined with the for-profit medical and insurance industries? Most doctors, psychologists, counselors are generally well-intentioned, but there ARE some bad actors, and MOST profit from diagnosing people as exhibiting treatable pathologies. Insurers wish to shift costs from their private insurance onto government programs…
Having done disability work for 30 years, I can assure you that claims are VERY much related to the economy. When manufacturing took a dive in the 80s-90s - guess what? Disability claims out of Ohio and Michigan SOARED! Do you think they just coincidentally became incapable of working at the same time the jobs disappeared? Today, with unemployment low, what is happening? Claims for SS disability benefits are WAY down.
Another thing that led to increased disability claims over the past couple of decades was the elimination of general welfare.
Another factor - at least w/ SS disability, “need” doesn’t enter into it. You can be Bill Gates, and if you have a stroke or something such that you can’t do ANY work, you get your disability payment.
Having worked in SS disability for 30 years I can honestly tell you that I HAVE NO IDEA what societal goals I am advancing. The disability programs clearly do not provide for the “neediest” (however I define it.) Nor do they assist people in becoming more productive. Essentially the only thing I am doing is figuring out where people fit within a complex bureaucratic framework. Terms like “disabled” are almost irrelevant.
With such experiences and opinions, I’ve decided that trying to figure out who is and isn’t “disabled” is largely a fool’s errand. It would be easier to provide a minimal cash payment to everyone, and provide some level of medical, educational, and vocational assistance as well.
Having said that, I’m currently handling a lot of cases out of Wisconsin. I am ASTOUNDED at the breadth of support programs indigent people in Wisconsin receive. From medical treatment to cash payments, rent and utility assistance, case managers, mentors, home care… Now I consider myself quite liberal. And as a career govt employee, I support the liberal provision of government services. However, it has caused me considerable distress, as I’ve seen countless cases where individuals eagerly accept ever increasing amounts of services, while making no visible effort to improve their situation. And many of the services are provided by contractors, who benefit from the situation.
Really a complicated situation which defies any simple solution.
Sorry, I imagine this does not advance the discussion any. But it is frustrating when so many posters (advancing various views) make statements as tho this is a simple situation, in which everyone shares certain traits. No - not every person seeking disability benefits is a noble individual who would work if only they weren’t discriminated against. And no, not every such person is lazy and only seeking a handout.
Consider it an entitlement, or consider it a necessity, as in, ‘without this I’m gonna die, or at best end up out on the street and die there a bit more slowly’?
Of course, it’s true that not everyone thinks that people, even in an overall very rich country, have any entitlement to life. Let alone to the pursuit of happiness.
Obama, as I’ll be really surprised if you don’t already know, inherited an economy in a state of close to utter disaster. Under the Obama administration the economy improved to a very large extent. Trump inherited the benefits of the improvements under Obama, thereby landing, as far as the economy was concerned, with a large running start.
Of course, presidents aren’t anywhere near as much in charge of the economy as many people seem to think they are.
Of course there are some such people. The question is, are there actually effective methods of weeding out such people that are not unreasonably hard on those who are in genuine need – bearing in mind that something that’s easy for a person who’s not in such need may be extraordinarily hard for someone who is? And, if so, are those the methods that are actually being used?
Offering my personal 33 years of full time experience trying to do that very thing, and working with and discussing this with MANY similar people, I do not know if such effective methods exist. I am not aware of any (tho I have not studied all such programs in depth.) But I am confident that the methods currently used by SS and VA disability programs do a piss poor job of doing that.
Nice rant, i guess. Was their a fucking point buried in there somewhere? Seriously, with all your relevant government experience in this subject, you dont seem to add much of anything substantive to the conversation. You just seem bitter for choosing the wrong career decades ago.
So whats your proposal? Things are in need of major fixing, some people are always going to game the system, so just throw up your hands and say it’s too hard so do nothing? Dude, just quit. You’re burned out.
I agree.
Ambivalid - I’m not sure what I wrote in that - or any other post - that would warrant your ad hominen attack. But thanks for convincing me that I have no interest in revisiting this thread, or reading anything you post.
I apologize. I was momentarily taken aback by your consistently sour disposition in any discussion involving federal benefits. I’m just not clear on why you enter these threads. If I’ve missed your major contributions to this conversation i apologize again. I let myself get personally invested in these threads sometimes. For the most part, I really do enjoy your contributions on this board.
ETA: And after rereading my response to you, I was out of line. I’m sorry. It wasnt deserved.
Which, I think, is why the suggestions for universal basic income. Whether this would be so set up as not to leave significant numbers of people even worse off is another question, and certainly one worth asking. But pointing out that such a system would result in some freeloaders isn’t IMO that much of an argument against it. Any system that anyone’s been able to think of, to the best of my knowledge, at least for societies of more than a few hundred people, results either in some freeloaders, or in some people dying or left stuck in squalor through no fault of their own. Or, of course, both; which seems to be what we’ve got now.
If this were Parliament, I would defer my time to my learned colleague Dinsdale.
Instead, I’ll just point out that his post #143 is a superb response to your post, even if it wasn’t directed as such.
If you don’t mind sharing personal details, I’d be interested in hearing your story: how you went from a (federal income) tax-paying member of society to collecting SNAP and back again.
Ok, so what i gathered from that post 143 is basically that he’s saying the system is badly broken and doesnt serve the best interests of those its set up to serve.
So lets fix the system. Right? Or? What? What is the main thrust of that post other than one of despair and do-nothingism? Has tightening or at least comprehensively reviewing the qualifications (or whatever term is appropriate) for what “disabled” means been conducted in recent past? Or the scrutiny for qualifying could be conducted in order to qualify under a new UBI-supplement program?
Clearly $12,000 with no means to improve the circumstances in one’s life is not an acceptable living wage. Not one we should let exist in this country. Not when the person living in those means has no independent ability to ever rise up out of them. The disabled people who would simply survive on UBI just as they are simply surviving on disability payments today would be in at best an unimproved circumstance and at worst in a worse circumstance than prior to the UBI. Unless certain allowances are made for their intractable situations which increase their cost of simply surviving.
Maybe we could fund them with money extracted from the undeserving rich…
I initially expressed my opinion that UBI was the best solution I could think of. Posts 13, 50.
My recent posts were IRT people suggesting that SOME people - such as the disabled - ought to get UBI + something more. And other people offering what I thought simplistic “solutions.” When I noted the difficulties of ascertaining disability, in no way was that a criticism of UBI. I don’t know what I wrote to create such confusion.
Did you notice my post #145? or notice Dinsdale’s post #146? – you probably hadn’t seen my post #151, as that was posted almost simultaneously with yours above.
ETA: speaking of simultaneous posting: Dinsdale, as you agree there’s no good way of telling apart people whose disability genuinely means they’d require extra help on top of UBI from those who are freeloading, are you arguing that the people who really can’t help it should be left without enough funds to survive on? That seems unlikely, but it’s all I can get from your latest post.
Hey, by restricting the supplement to “medical goods and services” that, to me, seems like it would go some way to discourage gamers of the system. If all they can score out of the deal is some free catheters and some baclofen, i dont think the racket will hold that much appeal to many of the scammers.
You would need to define so many terms in your post. Who are the people who “really can’t help it”? I’m not trying to be difficult, I’m really not sure what you mean.
Who are the people who lack “enough funds to survive on”? Are you presuming that they receive any/all of: health care; education; vocational training; housing assistance; food stamps? I never understood UBI proposed as a substitute for all of those. I certainly never suggested as much.
Who are the people who need “extra help on top of UBI”? And what form do you expect this extra help to assume? Without knowing who you mean and why, I’m incapable of expressing an opinion as to whether a system is desirable or workable. I’m not sure there is a huge difference in my mind as to WHY someone is unable to succeed in the economy. Whether they are physically impaired, lazy, had poor role models, unintelligent, ex-cons, etc., ad infinitum. Give them all UBI, and then offer additional services/programs for those who need them and are willing to take advantage of them.
I never used the word “freeloader.” For people to use such a loaded term in responding to my post, I think, distorts what I actually said. What is a freeloader? What is disability fraud? I don’t know, and I doubt there is a single agreed upon definition.
I think Dinsdale was expressing the sort of frustration that either leads to or comes from job burn out. Having worked in social services at one time I understand the frustration. Some days you feel like you’re trying to bail out the sinking Titanic with a spoon.