Let them waste money on drugs, and let them ALSO see that having 2-3-4-5 kids eats bigger and bigger chunks into basic income than not doing so. This would provide a disincentive to people popping out kids they cannot afford and relying on the state to pick up the slack. I see it in my own family. The people least able to take care of offspring have more kids than the ones who are more financially stable and well to do. I do not want to prop up systems that exacerbate that.
I don’t understand that opening no. Did you even read what you just posted? Everything you said is absolutely claiming that you know better than the poor people what they need. Especially …
See? You do think you know better. Why not just admit it?
The whole point of a UBI is that is a) Universal (so even childless people who are not students get it) b) Basic (only enough to cover the basics, not extras or luxuries) and most important, c) Income (actual money that you can spend.) You hit point b, but totally miss both A and C. This is why people are pissing on your ideas in a thread titled “The argument for basic income.”
From my point of view, the big flaw in your plan is that instead of giving people money to buy stuff, you are giving them free stuff. Part of human nature is that people DO NOT VALUE free stuff. Most people believe on a deep level that if something is good, it will cost something. Furthermore, you are never going to get society to agree on which stuff should be free and which stuff shouldn’t.
That’s a laugh. I read that as: I have no counter to your valid argument that an approved government list that would get heavy government subsidies would lead to corruption by third parties who would love to take all that sweet, sweet government money.
Or do you believe that corruption only happens in Somalia, and your government is clean as falling rain? If so, I have some lovely ocean-front property in Alberta that I’ll sell to you for a hell of a bargain.
I agree, eventually robots will force the adoption of UBI.
One of my goals for 2017, is to turn HurricaneDitka and Septimus into Universal Basic Income cheerleaders.
I think there may be a better argument here. I, as an internet know-it-all with oversized smartypants, certainly know what’s best for everyone!
But does the government?
I’ve been misread if you think I’m an anti-UBI conservative! I like the idea of UBI, but want to improve it and make it less expensive.
Are you UBI cheerleaders in favor of government-funded universal healthcare? Or, since everyone would perhaps have the funds to buy insurance, do you argue that providing free healthcare means people will not appreciate it; and that people should be free to spend their money on iPhones rather than health insurance?
If you will argue that we revert to an older private health system under UBI, with programs like Medicare and Obamacare all repealed, so that people are free to buy or not buy insurance, then I give up.
If instead you are happy to have the government fund universal healthcare in addition to any UBI, then I ask you to reassess my writings here in a more favorable light. Healthcare is a basic human need. So are housing and childcare — providing these needs directly, rather than money that might be used for them eliminates the financial incentive to “pop out babies.”
I still want a universal healthcare system, not set on which kind, but mandatory participation if there are still insurers is a must, paid for with tax dollars and or direct credits to be paid for by government tax dollars. I want the enhanced bargaining power of a single provider to be a thing, I want streamlined medical records to be a thing long term.
Healthcare + UBI = my primary welfare state as far as policy goes
Housing? childcare? No thanks to that. Having too many kids with a UBI would be a disincentive to having more kids because that drains more resources from your personal income. You could actually get to a point where the UBI does not offer enough funding to pay for their daycare and food, that is a good thing as it will make it less desirable for people who literally cannot take care of more people to stop adding to the problem. More kids from a single mother who has no job? More drain on her resources.
And I resent parents being given special treatment. What about single people?
Perhaps we need to define the UBI more clearly. In your model, a household with two adults and some children would get twice the UBI of a single person? Or only the same UBI if one of the parents was under the cut-off age? (18?) And when a large household’s breadwinner dies, the UBI is cut in half? (We do agree that UBI is paid only to living persons, right?)
The faults in your system are far more egregious than any in mine.
Twice the UBI, because each person gets their own independent UBI. Want to stay single and be a single mother? Fine. Raise kids with your own work + UBI income. Want to stay with the father and raise the kids together? Great, you can pool both your work and UBI incomes, this rewards good behavior as not only do you share living space and bills, you get two additional income streams on top of what work brings. A positive incentive financially for good behavior? Imagine that.
Guy wants to skip out and not raise the kids and leave you dry? So be it, child support can tap his UBI directly, there will be no non working blood from a turnip issues with this model, unless of course the guy has so many stray kids the splits in child support are so small to the point of being meaningless, but then, perhaps that’s not the guy to get involved with.
Either way, these are superior incentive structures than the current system or with subsidies. And part of the reason is the last word. I want to have a welfare state that actually promotes the general welfare, to help lift people up higher, not just help them… subsist.
IOW, Yes: The large household loses half (or all) of its UBI when the breadwinner dies. Presumably this is good because it creates an incentive not to die. Got it.
No, each person gets an income. Unless that person that died is half the people in the house, the income won’t get cut in half. And if they are, you now have half the mouths to feed so why is half the income so bad? Presumably the deceased would have had a 401k or pension or life insurance or something as well.
If you’re suggesting that married couples should receive one double basic income, instead of two singles, to persist for either until both partners have died, I’m not against that system. But I’m not 100% convinced it is necessary either.
Each person or each adult?
The scenario included children. Currently, minor children of deceased who earned income can receive social security payments.
Well, I’m a Canadian whose country actually has universal healthcare … so yes. I don’t think it should be completely free, due to people not valuing free stuff, but I’m strongly in favor of being universal and heavily-subsidized and run by the government.
I can agree with you on housing being a basic need. The question would be how would you implement it? Does the government go full eminent domain, and seize every residential property in the country, becoming everyone’s landlord? Do they instead just cut checks to every landlord who asks for one? What methods do you think we should use to maximize the value of the huge amount of money that this would cost? To do it your way would either cost more than issuing a check to each adult citizen, or would be ripe for abuse.
As for childcare … well, there I disagree with you. I strongly feel that the government shouldn’t be raising children. I can’t quite put my finger on why, so I’ll just leave it at that for now.
That’s an interesting goal. I think I’m less stridently-opposed to the idea of a UBI than you might expect, but there seem to be a lot of different ideas on what exactly a UBI means and how we might go about setting it up, which makes it hard to find the problems, and to overcome my practical concerns with it.
One question: is there any reason that a state can’t set up a UBI today? Do we have to do this at the federal level or could California lead the charge?
I’m not assuming that. Why did you put “everyone” in the first sentence of your post?
Personally, I think children should receive a reduced basic income, to be controlled by their parents, until they are 18 or emancipated. So yes, if there are children and dad died, the household income doesn’t get halved. Just reduced by one adult’s income.
The kids still get to eat, but if there is no other income stream, maybe mom has to move the family into a cheaper place. It sucks, but that’s essentially how it goes now, minus the basic income part.
Salvor, would child support be the only reason to dock someone’s UBI, or would you allow others to dock it as well (alimony, civil suit judgements, the IRS, etc)?
For reference, you could maybe expect 3.6 million adults to lose an average of $430/month if you allow child support to tap UBI directly.
And 3.6 million (or more) kids who have financial support who didn’t before. That’s not a problem, that’s a very good thing. And why would somebody lose money by being given money? That doesn’t make sense. At worst we have some deadbeat dads who aren’t getting as much on the dole as they would if they were childless.
The point I was getting at is that if we allow others to also deduct from someone’s UBI, like the IRS to cover unpaid taxes, or as a replacement for court-ordered wage garnishments, or municipalities to cover parking tickets, or colleges to make sure students pay their tuition or student loans, or payday lenders to make sure they get paid, then we don’t really have a UBI anymore. We just have a government-guarantees-debt-repayment system now, and many of the poor people, who are most in need of a UBI, will not see a dime of it. $430 will go to pay their childcare, and $350 will go to pay their car loan, and $250 will go to student loans, and $55 will go to pay for the TV they foolishly leased, etc. until they have nothing left at the beginning of the month.
They will have childcare for the month, transportation for the month, and a TV for the month. Doesn’t seem like “nothing” to me.