Universal basic income

[ktgrok]

You do not have to wait for higher taxes to pay more for programs that benefit others.  You can freely spend your money on these types of programs without having it mandated by tax law that you do so.  There is a difference in spending your own money to do this and voting for higher taxes to do this.  When voting for higher taxes, you are not only saying that you want to spend more on these things but that you also want your neighbor to be REQUIRED to spend more on these things, also.  

 

And I do, but having a zillion hodge podge organizations is less efficient. 

 

Also, yes, I know how taxes work. I was responding to the accusation that the people that want higher taxes or a bigger safety net say that because they aren't the ones paying those taxes. I was clarifying that with my husband's income level yes, we would be. 

[ktgrok]

Hunter gatherers actually spend less time working than most Americans...but that is in environments conducive to such thing. I don't know that Alaska would qualify :)

[ktgrok]

An interesting thought is, if there was a secure floor of UBI, would we have more poets, artists, philosophers, musicians, and such? More teachers? 

[EmseB]

And I do, but having a zillion hodge podge organizations is less efficient.

 

Having local grass roots organizations run by individuals that care and have to work efficiently is going to be more efficient than a large bureaucracy staffed by GS-5s that are not accountble for any of the aide they are giving out and are detached from the people they are trying to help.

 

A local food bank accountable to locals and serving locals is going to be better than a federal program. There will be less waste, less people getting food they don't want or need, etc.

 

One centralized program is not always better. But, if one believes their taxes should be higher, send more money to the federal treasury.

[ktgrok]

Having local grass roots organizations run by individuals that care and have to work efficiently is going to be more efficient than a large bureaucracy staffed by GS-5s that are not accountble for any of the aide they are giving out and are detached from the people they are trying to help.

 

A local food bank accountable to locals and serving locals is going to be better than a federal program. There will be less waste, less people getting food they don't want or need, etc.

 

 

 

Nope. First, in a poor area the people that live there are poor too, so can't donate much. Secondly, buying in bulk saves tons of money. So if the government as a whole were negotiating prices for drugs under universal healthcare, or for x ray machines, or whatever, it would save a ton of money, which is more efficient than some person with cancer having a go fund me on Facebook for their cancer drug. 

[EmseB]

Nope. First, in a poor area the people that live there are poor too, so can't donate much. Secondly, buying in bulk saves tons of money. So if the government as a whole were negotiating prices for drugs under universal healthcare, or for x ray machines, or whatever, it would save a ton of money, which is more efficient than some person with cancer having a go fund me on Facebook for their cancer drug.

So, dollar for dollar federal government programs do better than local charities?

 

Also, you've conflated several types of spending here and left out a critical component in helping people which can't be replicated be a bureaucracy. But, by the logic above, everything would be better off centralized and distributed by one agency. History shows us that that idea is not really terribly successful.

 

ETA: in my area, the poorest communities are less than a mile from affluent areas. And even working at the state level to help communities would be better than federal. Buying in bulk is only good if everyone needs the same kind of help.

Edited September 21, 2017 by EmseB

[Bootsie]

And I do, but having a zillion hodge podge organizations is less efficient. 

 

Also, yes, I know how taxes work. I was responding to the accusation that the people that want higher taxes or a bigger safety net say that because they aren't the ones paying those taxes. I was clarifying that with my husband's income level yes, we would be. 

The optimal number of organizations to have is one issue, but that is a different issue than how one, or many, organizations are funded.  If someone thinks that the government is more efficient at providing services and wants an increase in those services, no one is preventing the individual from sending a bigger check to the government.  

 

I think it would be an oversimplification to say that the only people who will vote for programs are the people who do not have to pay for them.  But, unless you are Bill Gates or Warren Buffet and are voting for an extremely progressive wealth tax, the fact is that when you vote for an increase in taxes i you are saying that you want the government to provide something, you are willing to pay a little bit, but you are want others to be required to pay for the vast majority of the project.  

[Bootsie]

Nope. First, in a poor area the people that live there are poor too, so can't donate much. Secondly, buying in bulk saves tons of money. So if the government as a whole were negotiating prices for drugs under universal healthcare, or for x ray machines, or whatever, it would save a ton of money, which is more efficient than some person with cancer having a go fund me on Facebook for their cancer drug. 

The gains from buying in bulk are not that great after a certain point.  My local food bank can buy cans of beans cheaper than I can, but I have a hard time believing that if the government was negotiating price for beans that it would be a much lower price than that the food bank pays.  Having worked for a government organization I saw a number of times that what the government paid was much more than what an individual would pay.  The bureaucracy related to government negotiated contracts is expensive and inefficient.  

[SKL]

Nope. First, in a poor area the people that live there are poor too, so can't donate much. Secondly, buying in bulk saves tons of money. So if the government as a whole were negotiating prices for drugs under universal healthcare, or for x ray machines, or whatever, it would save a ton of money, which is more efficient than some person with cancer having a go fund me on Facebook for their cancer drug. 

 

Or the gov't spends $700 on a hammer etc. etc. etc.

 

It's true that people in the immediate vicinity are probably all of similar means, but a lot of help doesn't cost money (or costs very little) when done by a caring neighbor.

 

Also, usually a well-run charity raises grants / donations from people (or corporations or foundations) down the street who do have more money.

 

And people who do have money are much more willing to donate it to organizations they can personally visit and see in action.  In some cases this can also lead to votes for tax levies etc.

 

The government has its role, that's fine and dandy, but it's rarely the state of the art.  So let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

[Audrey]

What gets me about this thread is I am assuming that since we are pretty much all homeschoolers, and a vast majority of homeschooling parents have at least once parent that doesn't work, this discussion becomes a bit absurd. I mean, most of us have made a decision that we would rather raise our children then get an income. We were not forced to do this, we made the choice. EVERYONE regardless of income would like more money. And I am sure everyone here would take an income (assuming they don't get one of their own right now) if it was handed to them. That is the way the world works. 

 

Of coarse there would be abuse if we were to actually implement this! It is absurd to think otherwise. It is the government.

 

I want to address the two bolded above:

 

1) The absurdity here is the assumption that homeschooling = foregone income.  This may be true for some, but there are large numbers of people here who bring in income AND homeschool.  I, for one, have always worked while homeschooling.  Please try not to generalize when talking about what equals a homeschooler.  We're quite diverse in all ways.

 

2)  It is not possible to abuse a UBI program.  In UBI programs ALL ADULTS RECEIVE THE SAME MINIMUM INCOME regardless of circumstance or condition.  You can't get more money than that unless you choose to work at a job that pays more than that.  But, you never make less than that because if you work at a job that pays less than UBI you will receive enough money to bring you up to the level a UBI would provide.  To answer the begged question: yes, there will be some people who will choose not to work, but instead just take the UBI.  But this is not necessarily a bad thing.  Maybe they might choose not to work because they're a stoner who just wants weed money, or maybe it's because they're a mom who wants to stay home with her children to homeschool them.  Whatever the reason, it's not the job of the populace to judge the choices of others, and even then that is irrelevant to the point that UBI allows every person, every family to receive at least enough income to meet a standard of basic needs.  

 

I'd like to repeat that.... it would allow every person, every family to receive at least enough to meet basic needs. There no agenda in that.  It's basic needs met.  Period. 

[Audrey]

It isn't about a skill gap. It's about the reality that as we have computers and machines doing more jobs, we need fewer people to get the work done. You automate a factory that once employed five hundred people, and now it only needs fifty. So out of those five hundred, fifty might get those remaining jobs by upgrading their skill sets, but the other 450 are out of luck.

 

The same thing is starting to happen in the service economy. That McDonalds serves just as many fries as ten years ago, but with fewer workers needed to run it, for instance.

 

There is another side to this coin as well, and that is that the modern capitalist/paid labor system is based upon a growth model. For sustainability we desperately need to move away from the assumption of growth to a steady-state model of industry. We need to recognize that we only need so much stuff, and that there are other ways to find fulfillment as a human being than working for a paycheck. Maybe actually taking care of your own kids will gain some prestige, as you're doing something productive regardless of whether it brings in a paycheck. People with crap jobs doing pointless or nearly pointless things already tend to find personal fulfillment in something else. Getting a paycheck for the work you do is not the sole measure of human dignity and fulfillment. It didn't exist as a thing in many societies for much of history. Human culture can vest human value in something other than money and stuff. It has before, and it can again.

 

 

Ravin, I hope you don't mind if I jump off of this to also add that part of the perception of panic about fewer jobs being available is due to the population bubble that sits at the baby boom generation.  Behind them, there are fewer children per family, and while population growth is still increasing, it isn't at levels as in that generation.  

 

Also in that mix is that while we may panic over losing some jobs that become automated, the jobs that most of our children or grandchildren will/may have in the next 20 years haven't even been invented yet.  The tech growth and innovation isn't just about producing automated workers to replace labour, but also about growing the ability to keep advancing technologies.  And, then there is the fact that we will still likely be a commerce economy.  The service industries are growing as many, and sometimes more, jobs than the tech sector.  

 

 

[fraidycat]

What gets me about this thread is I am assuming that since we are pretty much all homeschoolers, and a vast majority of homeschooling parents have at least once parent that doesn't work, this discussion becomes a bit absurd. I mean, most of us have made a decision that we would rather raise our children then get an income. We were not forced to do this, we made the choice. EVERYONE regardless of income would like more money. And I am sure everyone here would take an income (assuming they don't get one of their own right now) if it was handed to them. That is the way the world works.

 

Of course there would be abuse if we were to actually implement this! It is absurd to think otherwise. It is the government. Private corporations have abuse in them and they have shareholders that actually can audit them and they STILL have abuse in them. The government is a GIANT corporation with very little oversight (though they like to pretend there is). I am sure we would hear of all sorts of abuse should this come to fruition. Things like the uber rich putting their money off shore and claiming that they were poor and getting more money. People living in other countries getting their paychecks even though they don't even live here. And so on and so on.

 

At the end of the day, it is just REALLY easy to spend other people's money. When it is your own, and you have your taxes go up, you get a dose of reality and suddenly don't like the idea anymore. This is the whole reason why if I were queen for a day I would LOVE to see all laws (except for amendments to the constitution) have sunsets. They have to be revoted on every 5-10 years (yearly in the case of war for war issues). I know people would cry "But the republicans would take away money for the poor!" and "But the democrats would take away military funding!" Yeah, but we would be freer to spend our money how we see fit if that was the case. If the poor is important to you, donate to organizations that help them. If the military is important to you, I am sure there is a way to donate to that.

 

One other thought. Last night this thread reminded me of a story my DH told me. He had a colleague who was working here in the US for a number of years. He had a house and had quite a bit of equity in it. Well he got a job transfer to Sweden. So he sold his house and had this pile of cash that he was able to take with him to Sweden. He got over there and even though he made a normal salary for over there, he had this pile of cash from the sale of his home in the US. He was shocked when he went to look for something to purchase over there. See because of of taxes in that country, most people can only afford up to a certain point as far as housing. So because he had more money, he was able to look over that amount. He was able to get a place 2-3 times bigger then the average person because he had "just a bit more". So he now lives in a big house and lives on a normal salary.

 

My point with this story is that you will ALWAYS have the have and the have nots. The people lower down will always be competing for resources and the people to the top will always have the cream of the crop. Taking money from the top and moving it down doesn't bring the people down to the the people on the bottom. It just makes it so more people are competing for the bottom resources. The only way to avoid that is to have a communist/socialist society, but those never work out as good as they are promised to... strange.

1) What is there to abuse, exactly? Universal means, well universal. Everyone. Or every adult, at least.

 

2) UBI is not about equalization for all. It is not supposed to eliminate the "haves", it is to help the "have nots" actually be "have somes". Food, housing, basics. Maybe they can even become closer to "haves".

 

It's much easier to climb the hill when you're starting from level ground vs. trying to carve toe holds in the side of the slippery pit just to get to ground level.

 

And what does TAXES have to do with housing affordability? I assume you're talking about income taxes based in your arguments throughout your post, but I've got a newsflash for you: every single person in the U.S. where taxes are "lower" are not residing in McMansions either. What is the reason they can only "afford up to a certain pointt"? Still paying too much tax? Or could there possibly be other factors?

Edited September 22, 2017 by fraidycat

[SKL]

I want to address the two bolded above:

...

 

2)  It is not possible to abuse a UBI program.  In UBI programs ALL ADULTS RECEIVE THE SAME MINIMUM INCOME regardless of circumstance or condition.  You can't get more money than that unless you choose to work at a job that pays more than that.  But, you never make less than that because if you work at a job that pays less than UBI you will receive enough money to bring you up to the level a UBI would provide.  To answer the begged question: yes, there will be some people who will choose not to work, but instead just take the UBI.  But this is not necessarily a bad thing.  Maybe they might choose not to work because they're a stoner who just wants weed money, or maybe it's because they're a mom who wants to stay home with her children to homeschool them.  Whatever the reason, it's not the job of the populace to judge the choices of others, and even then that is irrelevant to the point that UBI allows every person, every family to receive at least enough income to meet a standard of basic needs.  

 

I'd like to repeat that.... it would allow every person, every family to receive at least enough to meet basic needs. There no agenda in that.  It's basic needs met.  Period. 

 

If everyone is given the same $$ by the government, I could generally agree with your "no abuse," except for those who will take it for other people - abused people, dead people, people whose identity has been stolen ....

 

But if this is a payout only to people who earn less than the UBI, then there will be plenty of abuse i.e. people working "under the table" and not reporting their actual income so they can get the UBI.

 

(Of course these also happen with welfare systems etc.)

 

[Laura Corin]

That's how UBI works. Everyone gets it, regardless of need. It's universal.

Edited September 22, 2017 by Laura Corin

[Rosie_0801]

An interesting thought is, if there was a secure floor of UBI, would we have more poets, artists, philosophers, musicians, and such? More teachers? 

 

Probably.

 

There might be less crime too.