Should UBI Replace all Welfare Systems?

[GlumMasterpiece]

There are a lot of factors at play with any monetary distribution like this; for instance do we provide the same UBI to an Alaska resident as you would someone in New York or Peurto Rico. These factors are significantly easier to approach in smaller countries, but should always be dealt with in a well thought out manner.

Of course, there are a lot of things that must go into consideration, I don't know on the exact cost of living differences (based on studies) but I think that this would have to be much more fleshed out then giving everyone 13,000 a year and calling it a day. I do think there must be cost of living differences but on average what this SHOULD account for $13,000 for each American citizen -- this is what it would average out to with the differences in cost of living.

Yeah, I agree. In a country like the US, you really would need to have a different amount for different regions I think. If not, then it wouldn't have the desired effect in big cities. On the other hand, it it was more in the big cities, people might want to go there to get more, not fully realizing that they'd just spend it all there. Maybe, if it was the same everywhere, it would discourage people from going to big cities. They'd stay in smaller cities more, get the same amount of money and live on less. It's sort of hard to predict I guess.

I'll try to get back with a little write-up on healthcare and stuff along those lines, thanks all for being apart of this conversation.

I'm looking forward to the healthcare ideas. Thanks for the discussion.

[1713507173]

1713507173

[1713507173]

1713507173

[1713507173]

1713507173

[1713507173]

1713507173

[1713507173]

1713507173

[Flying Hellfish]

But this should never be a substitute for working, and that's something that I want to stress.

How about incentivizing low income working people with UBI money, if you have a job but it's below XX,XXX a year get a bump from UBI, if you don't work and are able too, you need to not be given as much.

[suchmoon]

There's no question that it would create a slight disincentive to work, but I do not think that it would have an enormous effect on people's willingness to work.

I think this effect would be far larger than many here seem to believe.

What used to be called "middle class" makes what - $60k a year? (median family income in the US). Now imagine a family of four getting $52k "free". Would they stay in their back-breaking dead-end jobs? You could say they might be more inclined to move into more satisfying perhaps less paying jobs to supplement their UBI but that might make it even worse by displacing less educated/qualified people currently holding those positions. UBI has a potential of creating a massive disruption in the job market and I'm not sure it would be a positive one. Remember we would still need a solid tax base to support the UBI. Wouldn't want to end up with e.g. 25% VAT/sales tax.

Another negative effect could be inflation. I know the theory is that it would be just replacing current welfare system, but for a lot of people it would be additional disposable income and depending on how they spend it we might end up with price changes that would create new social problems in housing, healthcare, etc.

[Steamtyme]

What used to be called "middle class" makes what - $60k a year? (median family income in the US). Now imagine a family of four getting $52k "free".

As the program right now is speculation the UBI is generally applied to only adults, or persons in the age of majority.
I haven't looked into how many of the pilot programs were calculated but some actually provide a lesser amount to couples. So If you or I as an individual were to receive 13000 as a couple we may receive 21000.

I'm not going to lie if the only thing keeping someone at there back breaking job is that they "need" that amount if money, I think them being able to take a lesser wage for the trade off of better mental health or less hard labor good for them. This would allow people to make decisions based on more than the dollars earned.

As with any system there will be people who try and abuse it or give it a bad name. I personally feel the overall net benefit will be a society that has improved mental health, and a stronger workforce because at the lower to medium skill jobs people will make a choice not just accept circumstance.

To hellfish's post about donating.
That was refreshing to see and something I had not considered. I like the idea that there are some out there who realise what they have is enough and would be willing to use this as an attempt to help lift others

[suchmoon]

As the program right now is speculation the UBI is generally applied to only adults, or persons in the age of majority.
I haven't looked into how many of the pilot programs were calculated but some actually provide a lesser amount to couples. So If you or I as an individual were to receive 13000 as a couple we may receive 21000.

That right there sounds prone to abuse and unfairness if applied to any significant extent outside of a limited experiment. Expect shitloads of "unmarried" or suddenly "divorced" couples claiming $13k each. Kids need to eat and go to school and can't earn for themselves.

The only way this could possibly work at least to some extent as a replacement for welfare without its accompanying bureaucracy is if it's straight $13k for everyone, not dependent on marital status or age limitations, but you would still need some government involvement to make sure that e.g. kids are not starving and people with disabilities or other issues have a fair chance. Unless we're disregarding all that as part of the whole welfare system, in which case we might as well cut the UBI off at the age of 65 and let them old-timers fend for themselves.

[Flying Hellfish]

To hellfish's post about donating.
That was refreshing to see and something I had not considered. I like the idea that there are some out there who realise what they have is enough and would be willing to use this as an attempt to help lift others

LOL I can only dream I have enough LOL.  I want more don't get me wrong, I would like nothing more than to be able to provide my wife and kids with a substantial nest egg should something happen to me (like the deep state lizzard pedo's taking a hit out on me   !!!!!!!!!) but I don't want it from people with much less than I currently have!

[Steamtyme]

That right there sounds prone to abuse and unfairness if applied to any significant extent outside of a limited experiment. Expect shitloads of "unmarried" or suddenly "divorced" couples claiming $13k each. Kids need to eat and go to school and can't earn for themselves.

The only way this could possibly work at least to some extent as a replacement for welfare without its accompanying bureaucracy is if it's straight $13k for everyone, not dependent on marital status or age limitations, but you would still need some government involvement to make sure that e.g. kids are not starving and people with disabilities or other issues have a fair chance. Unless we're disregarding all that as part of the whole welfare system, in which case we might as well cut the UBI off at the age of 65 and let them old-timers fend for themselves.

I like your straightforward approach but I do not believe that children should be considered in the universal equation as "equals". I would not be opposed in any way to having a smaller portion allotted for a household with children as there is a substantial cost increase associated. Believe me I know
I also believe there will still need to be considerations taken for the disabled and elderly, to ensure proper care. Especially when both groups can at times be mistreated, forgotten or taken advantage of.

Again the UBI, is not meant to be something you can make a living off, it is supposed to help everyone have the opportunity to meet the basic necessities of life, but not being limited to lower income earners. It also is not tied to only being able to spend the money in a certain way, it is your income, which also has the potential for abuse. I just rarely any program should be tweaked based on the small number of people abusing it. The fine tuning of how benefits are calculated and paid, should be something we can learn from these experiments if they are run start to finish and analysed in an unbiased manner. 

To touch back on the shitloads you describe, yes there may be something along those lines. I imagine then that they would have to be looked at tin the same way as a common law relationship is. Which most of the time is no different than married. The added cost of a new address would negate the gains these people may be trying to grab.

It is also currently happening or at least being considered.
https://www.today.com/health/happily-married-couple-considers-divorce-pay-daughter-s-health-care-t132915

[suchmoon]

To touch back on the shitloads you describe, yes there may be something along those lines. I imagine then that they would have to be looked at tin the same way as a common law relationship is. Which most of the time is no different than married. The added cost of a new address would negate the gains these people may be trying to grab.

On the other hand, we wouldn't want to falsely categorize otherwise unrelated people living at the same address (e.g. roommates) as "partners" and reduce their UBI, right? This gets very complicated very quickly.

Overall the main thing making me extremely skeptical towards UBI is that it is loved both by bright-red socialists and hardcode libertarians, which seems to indicate that the idea is unworkable in practice. It won't improve social fairness and it won't eliminate the state's responsibility for welfare, or achieve whatever other goals those groups might ascribe to UBI. In practice this would be a welfare system under a different name, with a bunch of exceptions and limitations and lots and lots of regulation.

Or we could focus on what has been working reasonably well if not perfectly, e.g. improving education, healthcare, public safety, infrastructure, etc to give people a better chance at upward mobility plus a decent safety net, boring as it may be.

[Steamtyme]

On the other hand, we wouldn't want to falsely categorize otherwise unrelated people living at the same address (e.g. roommates) as "partners" and reduce their UBI, right? This gets very complicated very quickly.

You're not wrong but I feel any system that looks to encompass a large group of people living in inequality will be complex in nature. The checks and balances of this system would again have to be hammered out by the administering government, and be open to adapting to changing circumstances. Admittedly something governments are becoming worse at as time goes on. For my country it would probably fall into the category of filing tax returns that would help to decide what is a couple or not, again there will be the couples that are "roomates" for life. No matter the system for regulating anything there will be those who find a way around it.

Overall the main thing making me extremely skeptical towards UBI is that it is loved both by bright-red socialists and hardcode libertarians, which seems to indicate that the idea is unworkable in practice.

Skepticism is healthy, and needed in any good debate. Anyone who goes into something like this without an open mind towards failure or success will at some point only hinder the development of the project. I personally don't reject an idea based on who is for or against it, regardless of my opinion,but I tend to try and see the points of failure. This has helped me personally with planning, developing and learning in general.

Or we could focus on what has been working reasonably well if not perfectly, e.g. improving education, healthcare, public safety, infrastructure, etc to give people a better chance at upward mobility plus a decent safety net, boring as it may be.

Agreed, boring doesn't mean bad. It has been shown that education is one of the best things you can do to help raise a nation. The majority of what you mentioned as well help create jobs, which usually accompany a program to bring unemployed persons back into the workforce; or provide low to medium skilled workers for a chance at upgrading.

Personally I have no problem admitting that my mother required the social safety nets in place to provide for us at some points in her life. She also took the opportunities that were presented to her, to upgrade and built a great career for herself. Based on my upbringing I've seen both the failures and successes of the system. This is why I will never agree with doing nothing to try and help elevate people and their situations, and the solution isn't always just handing out a check.

Been a great discussion. I feel the differing opinions and ideals seen here are exactly what need to be in place when the powers that be are deciding how to proceed. Unfortunately I feel we've been more open-minded and respectful in our discussions here than many governments prove to be.

LOL I can only dream I have enough LOL.  I want more don't get me wrong, I would like nothing more than to be able to provide my wife and kids with a substantial nest egg should something happen to me (like the deep state lizzard pedo's taking a hit out on me  !!!!!!!!!) but I don't want it from people with much less than I currently have!

It's good to dream and there is nothing wrong with wanting more regardless of being single or having a family. I can understand the wanting to make sure a family is covered no matter what happens. Another nice bonus, to a UBI or other programs.

You obviously forgot your tinfoil hat, and to spin around 3 times in each doorway before turning on your computer if they know where to take a hit out.

[GlumMasterpiece]

As the program right now is speculation the UBI is generally applied to only adults, or persons in the age of majority.
I haven't looked into how many of the pilot programs were calculated but some actually provide a lesser amount to couples. So If you or I as an individual were to receive 13000 as a couple we may receive 21000.

That right there sounds prone to abuse and unfairness if applied to any significant extent outside of a limited experiment. Expect shitloads of "unmarried" or suddenly "divorced" couples claiming $13k each. Kids need to eat and go to school and can't earn for themselves.

The only way this could possibly work at least to some extent as a replacement for welfare without its accompanying bureaucracy is if it's straight $13k for everyone, not dependent on marital status or age limitations, but you would still need some government involvement to make sure that e.g. kids are not starving and people with disabilities or other issues have a fair chance. Unless we're disregarding all that as part of the whole welfare system, in which case we might as well cut the UBI off at the age of 65 and let them old-timers fend for themselves.

The more we talk about it, the more it seems like it would be much less simple than was originally proposed. The idea of just giving every person an equal amount of money every month quickly became something else. What ago should they start receiving it? What about then they're too old to work anymore to supplement the UBI? How do you determine how old is too old to work? What if somebody is married? What if somebody has kids to support? What if somebody already makes a lot of money? What is somebody is from a poor area and another person lives in an expensive city? It seems like we'd still need big government organizations to regulate it all. 

[hondapond]

People against UBI are truly evil people.  UBI will drastically lower the crime rates and impove mental health for everyone.

We are supposedly more advanced than ever before but the modern human works much more than a hunter gather ever had to.

The vast majority of new wealth created goes straight to the top, the wealth inequality in this world is disturbing, 4 people own more than the entire bottom half of the popuatlion.

NO ONE IS SELF MADE, every wealthy person relies on this society and other people, without other people they wouldn't have wealth.

Every Fucking piece of land on this earth is "owned" what a joke, you can't even live in freedom if you want.

Support UBI

[GlumMasterpiece]

People against UBI are truly evil people.  UBI will drastically lower the crime rates and impove mental health for everyone.

We are supposedly more advanced than ever before but the modern human works much more than a hunter gather ever had to.

The vast majority of new wealth created goes straight to the top, the wealth inequality in this world is disturbing, 4 people own more than the entire bottom half of the popuatlion.

NO ONE IS SELF MADE, every wealthy person relies on this society and other people, without other people they wouldn't have wealth.

Every Fucking piece of land on this earth is "owned" what a joke, you can't even live in freedom if you want.

Support UBI

I don't think there's any need to be so aggressive about it. There are plenty of good arguments against UBI. I don't think they make the people against UBI evil.

You raise a really good point about how much we are working. People work so much these days, but we clearly don't need it. So many things are produced in excess. If you just look at food waste around the world, it's astounding! I've heard number at over 50% of food produced going to waste. Why the hell are we producing more than twice the amount of food we eat? That's not to mention that we don't even need to eat all the food we are eating. Obesity rates are going up all over the world. Companies purposefully produce things with planned obsolescence. We just constantly produce and consume. It would be better to produce smarter and better quality. I'm sure we could cut down on work our by dozens of percent.

[squatz1]

That right there sounds prone to abuse and unfairness if applied to any significant extent outside of a limited experiment. Expect shitloads of "unmarried" or suddenly "divorced" couples claiming $13k each. Kids need to eat and go to school and can't earn for themselves.

The only way this could possibly work at least to some extent as a replacement for welfare without its accompanying bureaucracy is if it's straight $13k for everyone, not dependent on marital status or age limitations, but you would still need some government involvement to make sure that e.g. kids are not starving and people with disabilities or other issues have a fair chance. Unless we're disregarding all that as part of the whole welfare system, in which case we might as well cut the UBI off at the age of 65 and let them old-timers fend for themselves.

To the first part, it would be the case that everyone does get 13,000 each -- it's not dependent on marital status. Though I would like to have it linked to if you're a dependent or age (or dependent status) As it does seem pretty hard to remove the abuse that may come forth when people are popping out kids just for the reason of getting 13,000 a year (if their children weren't listed as depents or something along these lines)

I don't really know how children would be treated, as this is the only area I can see that COULD be prone to abuse -- though I don't think the abuse is as catastrophic as the current welfare system.

Agreed, boring doesn't mean bad. It has been shown that education is one of the best things you can do to help raise a nation. The majority of what you mentioned as well help create jobs, which usually accompany a program to bring unemployed persons back into the workforce; or provide low to medium skilled workers for a chance at upgrading.

The problem with all of the things that were listed that needs fixing -- such as Education -- is that it's not like we havn't tried to fix these. It's just that we can't agree (the people and government) on HOW to fix these issues in Education, Healthcare, etc. Many things have been tried, but nothing has stuck and worked (to a large extent in the last 10 or so years)

Been a great discussion. I feel the differing opinions and ideals seen here are exactly what need to be in place when the powers that be are deciding how to proceed. Unfortunately I feel we've been more open-minded and respectful in our discussions here than many governments prove to be.

The difference between us debating on here, and governments is that the people in government need their constituents votes in order to stay in power while I'm just a guy on the internet. I can say the truth, and what I think should be done to fix systems.

Politicans must say what is best for them to stay in power, and I guess they've assumed that not supporting UBI is one of those things -- sadly.

My Healthcare writeup will come at some point, haven't gotten around to it yet. Sorry folks!

[suchmoon]

The problem with all of the things that were listed that needs fixing -- such as Education -- is that it's not like we havn't tried to fix these. It's just that we can't agree (the people and government) on HOW to fix these issues in Education, Healthcare, etc. Many things have been tried, but nothing has stuck and worked (to a large extent in the last 10 or so years)

The politicization (is that even a word?) of some of these issues is beyond ridiculous. You'd think we should at least agree that these things are important but there is a large percentage of population and politicians who appear to think that being dumb and sick is guaranteed by the 1st amendment.

Ironically the US being so backwards e.g. in healthcare could be an advantage - we could look around at how this is solved in other countries, learn from their mistakes, and build a better system. I'm laughing just typing this. Not happening in my lifetime.

[GlumMasterpiece]

Been a great discussion. I feel the differing opinions and ideals seen here are exactly what need to be in place when the powers that be are deciding how to proceed. Unfortunately I feel we've been more open-minded and respectful in our discussions here than many governments prove to be.

The difference between us debating on here, and governments is that the people in government need their constituents votes in order to stay in power while I'm just a guy on the internet. I can say the truth, and what I think should be done to fix systems.

Politicans must say what is best for them to stay in power, and I guess they've assumed that not supporting UBI is one of those things -- sadly.

Unfortunately, the point you brought up here is so true. Politicians will always avoid making highly controversial decisions. I just did some Googling though and I see some hopeful things. Wikipedia talks about some polls. It says that "in 2016 a poll showed that 58 percent of the European people are aware of basic income and 65 percent would vote in favor of the idea." Here's only about the US: "2017: POLITICO/Morning Consult asked 1994 Americans about their opinions on several political issues. One question addressed attitudes towards a national basic income in the United States. 43 percent either ‘strongly supported’ or ‘somewhat supported’ the idea." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income)

It seems like many places are trying to pilot the idea. I may become a reality sooner than we expect. One of the first results in my search was actually from Chicago. The government there is considering giving it a try, but the amount seems pretty low to me, $500/month. (https://freebeacon.com/issues/chicago-officials-looking-universal-basic-income-program/)

[BADecker]

UBI is a good idea for government to use on us. I say this from a personal advantage.

Most folks out there will be reduced to poverty (or greater poverty, if they are in poverty, already) with UBI. But because I know how to create multiple persons that all have my name (not that other people can't do this), and since I know how to assign the SSN (Social Security Number) from my SS person to other of my persons so that they can use it as well, and since I know how to benefit off all my persons, and legally protect myself from government officials who think I am doing something illegal (which I am not), I know how to make way more money (or live without it) than the simple UBI amounts.

So, UBI is a good thing for me. It takes property (in the form of money) from the people, and funnels some of it to me.

[squatz1]

The politicization (is that even a word?) of some of these issues is beyond ridiculous. You'd think we should at least agree that these things are important but there is a large percentage of population and politicians who appear to think that being dumb and sick is guaranteed by the 1st amendment.

Ironically the US being so backwards e.g. in healthcare could be an advantage - we could look around at how this is solved in other countries, learn from their mistakes, and build a better system. I'm laughing just typing this. Not happening in my lifetime.

If it's not a word, it sure as shit should be.

I don't think politicians and people in government are dumb, I think they're just stalling progress in order to keep their voters happy -- or (on the other end of things) promising so much that they know none of it isn't going to happen in order to keep their voters happy.

We're a different country in the United States, it's something that people have failed to notice for generations.

One of the first results in my search was actually from Chicago. The government there is considering giving it a try, but the amount seems pretty low to me, $500/month.

There's only so much that a city can give, the federal government (or state governments) can give a good amount more.

[GlumMasterpiece]

UBI is a good idea for government to use on us. I say this from a personal advantage.

Most folks out there will be reduced to poverty (or greater poverty, if they are in poverty, already) with UBI. But because I know how to create multiple persons that all have my name (not that other people can't do this), and since I know how to assign the SSN (Social Security Number) from my SS person to other of my persons so that they can use it as well, and since I know how to benefit off all my persons, and legally protect myself from government officials who think I am doing something illegal (which I am not), I know how to make way more money (or live without it) than the simple UBI amounts.

So, UBI is a good thing for me. It takes property (in the form of money) from the people, and funnels some of it to me.

Yeah, I'm sure there would be loads of fraud. That would take another whole government department to deal with. I wonder if your idea is anything similar to the movie Into the Wild. If I remember correctly, the guy burns all his document. Then later, for some reason he decides he needs some document. He comes to a homeless shelter in California and real quick they did him up some new documents just based on what he said. I wonder why illegal immigrants don't do that. Well, I guess some of them probably do, we just don't think they're illegal immigrants. Haha!

[squatz1]

Yeah, I'm sure there would be loads of fraud. That would take another whole government department to deal with. I wonder if your idea is anything similar to the movie Into the Wild. If I remember correctly, the guy burns all his document. Then later, for some reason he decides he needs some document. He comes to a homeless shelter in California and real quick they did him up some new documents just based on what he said. I wonder why illegal immigrants don't do that. Well, I guess some of them probably do, we just don't think they're illegal immigrants. Haha!

You have to understand that the welfare fraud which is present now is probably a lot more prevalent then it could be if UBI is present. Because with the current welfare system, if you fake your income levels (or something along these lines) you're going to be allowed to get welfare.

UBI is a system which gives to all (maybe capped out a certain point, but still) and avoids the tediousness of having to screen mass amounts of people.

[GlumMasterpiece]

You have to understand that the welfare fraud which is present now is probably a lot more prevalent then it could be if UBI is present. Because with the current welfare system, if you fake your income levels (or something along these lines) you're going to be allowed to get welfare.

UBI is a system which gives to all (maybe capped out a certain point, but still) and avoids the tediousness of having to screen mass amounts of people.

I can agree that there will probably be less fraud. It's a bit simpler to fake income than to create a completely new identity.

I was just reading about a pilot program that's happening right now in Ontario, Canada, if I understand correctly: https://www.ontario.ca/page/ontario-basic-income-pilot. The numbers there are quite similar to what we've been talking about here. It's intended to be an "income that will meet household costs and average health-related spending." This is how much there's giving:

Following a tax credit model, the Ontario Basic Income Pilot will ensure that participants receive up to:

$16,989 per year for a single person, less 50% of any earned income
$24,027 per year for a couple, less 50% of any earned income
People with a disability will also receive up to $500 per month on top.

It's only for people that are earning less than $30,000 or $48,000 as a couple. It seems a little weird to me. It you make $20,000, they'll only give you about $7000. They you'll have $27,000. If you don't work at all, you'll have $17,000. It seems like there could still be a tendency to work less. There would definitely be a huge desire to falsify income info, when every dollar means you lose 50 cents of what the government would give you. It looks like the first pilot program may actually be complete, but I can find the details yet.