US universal income proposal
28 Apr 2019, 4:59 am
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
sly279 wrote:
All things about this I’ve seen call for getting rid of welfare and replacing it with this, so no social security, no housing,bill assistance, food stamps, medical etc.
Before I worked housing paid $900 a month, I got $760 ssi, $200 food stamps and half our electricity paid. Say that’s $150. So $2,010 a month from government aid. But my mom gets 760 and $200 too so $2970 is what covers our needs, and we’d have to go with $2000 instead and pay for medical insurance.
It won’t work. Honestly social security should be more like $2500 then the 760 it is but they rigged it so it wouldn’t increase with inflation like it should have so they could rob it’s money. $1000 even if they kept the other stuff wouldn’t be enough in my area.
It’s bad enough they don’t take local economic in account with the current system, it’s be worse with this idea.
Before I worked housing paid $900 a month, I got $760 ssi, $200 food stamps and half our electricity paid. Say that’s $150. So $2,010 a month from government aid. But my mom gets 760 and $200 too so $2970 is what covers our needs, and we’d have to go with $2000 instead and pay for medical insurance.
It won’t work. Honestly social security should be more like $2500 then the 760 it is but they rigged it so it wouldn’t increase with inflation like it should have so they could rob it’s money. $1000 even if they kept the other stuff wouldn’t be enough in my area.
It’s bad enough they don’t take local economic in account with the current system, it’s be worse with this idea.
This is part of why the differences in approach to UBI really need to be highlighted strongly in that, as you put it, it would be a terrible cut to people who are on disability - who *need* ever bit of the benefits they get - to have those slashed to $1K per month and I'd agree with you, that's a terrible idea.
More on why some form of it is a necessary evil though:
I'd really advise looking at UBI not as a panacea or a 'progressive' move, it's more like a tourniquet to stop us from bleeding out when all of these changes properly take hold and when the job availability is below 50% for viable labor force participants.
I’m not against it I’m against it being another horrible half ass Obama care. Which was suppose to be universal health care. I’d rather have no UI then have a horrible one that makes peoples lives worse then it is now. So either 2500-3000 a month or don’t even bother doing it. The whole idea is it’s suppose to give everyone a living income. $1,000 isn’t living its below poverty. Good lucking living of it , having a family. Owning a car, etc.
But that’s what will happen as it’ll be watered down and horrible make millions homeless but they can say look we did it just like with Obamacare.
_________________
There is no place for me in the world. I'm going into the wilderness, probably to die
28 Apr 2019, 5:05 am
Sweetleaf wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
sly279 wrote:
All things about this I’ve seen call for getting rid of welfare and replacing it with this, so no social security, no housing,bill assistance, food stamps, medical etc.
Before I worked housing paid $900 a month, I got $760 ssi, $200 food stamps and half our electricity paid. Say that’s $150. So $2,010 a month from government aid. But my mom gets 760 and $200 too so $2970 is what covers our needs, and we’d have to go with $2000 instead and pay for medical insurance.
It won’t work. Honestly social security should be more like $2500 then the 760 it is but they rigged it so it wouldn’t increase with inflation like it should have so they could rob it’s money. $1000 even if they kept the other stuff wouldn’t be enough in my area.
It’s bad enough they don’t take local economic in account with the current system, it’s be worse with this idea.
Before I worked housing paid $900 a month, I got $760 ssi, $200 food stamps and half our electricity paid. Say that’s $150. So $2,010 a month from government aid. But my mom gets 760 and $200 too so $2970 is what covers our needs, and we’d have to go with $2000 instead and pay for medical insurance.
It won’t work. Honestly social security should be more like $2500 then the 760 it is but they rigged it so it wouldn’t increase with inflation like it should have so they could rob it’s money. $1000 even if they kept the other stuff wouldn’t be enough in my area.
It’s bad enough they don’t take local economic in account with the current system, it’s be worse with this idea.
This is part of why the differences in approach to UBI really need to be highlighted strongly in that, as you put it, it would be a terrible cut to people who are on disability - who *need* ever bit of the benefits they get - to have those slashed to $1K per month and I'd agree with you, that's a terrible idea.
More on why some form of it is a necessary evil though:
I'd really advise looking at UBI not as a panacea or a 'progressive' move, it's more like a tourniquet to stop us from bleeding out when all of these changes properly take hold and when the job availability is below 50% for viable labor force participants.
As of now the maximum disability payment I can get is 750 a month. But I get less than that since I have started working with voc rehab to get a job. For now kinda of seems like the best they may be able to do is getting me a position at an ARC thrift store.
If I had 1000 a month i could easily pay half my rent, me and my boyfriend split it, but my employment is not constant yet, still working with voc rehab to get a more permanent position. But if I had 1000 a month I could actully invest in something because with SSI if you get over 2000 in savings you don't qualify anymore even if the state has determined you have limited working ability. So as it stands now a person on disability cannot save up or they risk losing their disability benefits. At least with SSI maybe it is a bit different for SSDI. But from my perspective with 1000 a month I could get off SSI and EBT...and still get a job to provide more money for me and my small family of me and my boyfriend and eventually a cat.
Eventually you’ll transition over to ssdi and get $786 plus whatever you make as long as it’s less then $1180 pre tax. But if you get housIng rent goes up to compensate. However you’ll still get insurance via ssi, and so still can’t save over 2,000.
Under the proposed UI you’d get $1,000 that’s it, and you have to use that to get medical insurance as well as pay your bills. No thanks.
If you ever have questions about working with ssi,ssdi I can try to answer as I’ve been doing it for 3 years now.
_________________
There is no place for me in the world. I'm going into the wilderness, probably to die
techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,196
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi
28 Apr 2019, 11:10 am
sly279 wrote:
I’m not against it I’m against it being another horrible half ass Obama care. Which was suppose to be universal health care. I’d rather have no UI then have a horrible one that makes peoples lives worse then it is now. So either 2500-3000 a month or don’t even bother doing it. The whole idea is it’s suppose to give everyone a living income. $1,000 isn’t living its below poverty. Good lucking living of it , having a family. Owning a car, etc.
But that’s what will happen as it’ll be watered down and horrible make millions homeless but they can say look we did it just like with Obamacare.
But that’s what will happen as it’ll be watered down and horrible make millions homeless but they can say look we did it just like with Obamacare.
Yeah, the only way it makes any sense at $1K per month is it's $1K per month for anyone whose not on disability or SSI. Where I think $1K is good in this regard - it's a lot closer to being affordable and there are far fewer of the traditional 'this will make people lazy' or 'this will cause hyperinflation' - it's not enough to live on comfortably therefore it's clear that it's a buffer to smooth drastically changing labor conditions.
_________________
“Love takes off the masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within. I use the word "love" here not merely in the personal sense but as a state of being, or a state of grace - not in the infantile American sense of being made happy but in the tough and universal sense of quest and daring and growth.” - James Baldwin
techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,196
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi
28 Apr 2019, 11:16 am
On another note - I just thought about the inflation question and I want to ask this of people who've really looked into that angle.
For hyperinflation to occur by even 'helicopter money' in the way Ben Shapiro has often put it, wouldn't that require everyone making more money to where something drastic happens to the supply of money? If we're in a major work contraction and lets say, hypothetically, people on average are making $1K per month less than they were ten years ago, wouldn't adding $1K per person back in just take us back to where we were ten years ago or something quite similar? Even if you consider $1K going to the rich they're small enough a percentage of the population not to cause a skew.
I ask because I think there's a way to reify arguments like this for falsifiability. The problem is they often get used like political cudgels (both parties do this) because they're these ultimate abstract, infinitely elastic, objects. A good analogy might be 'slippery slope' and the slippery slope can lead someone right from marijuana to ice or from 'classical liberalism' to joining the alt-right. It seems like, our considerations of future solutions or things like UBI, we have to meaningful ways to throw a blanket of realistic scope of effect on such abstract objects so that they're not derailing meaningful progress.
_________________
“Love takes off the masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within. I use the word "love" here not merely in the personal sense but as a state of being, or a state of grace - not in the infantile American sense of being made happy but in the tough and universal sense of quest and daring and growth.” - James Baldwin
28 Apr 2019, 4:02 pm
It’s quite simple all this requires taking money from people who have billions they will never use before dying and those people oppose it. They won’t be happy until they have 100% of the money and the rest of us are dead.
_________________
There is no place for me in the world. I'm going into the wilderness, probably to die
techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,196
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi
28 Apr 2019, 4:26 pm
sly279 wrote:
It’s quite simple all this requires taking money from people who have billions they will never use before dying and those people oppose it. They won’t be happy until they have 100% of the money and the rest of us are dead.
That's why I'm pragmatic about this. Better to get 30 or 40% of something than 100% of nothing. Also better to get some kind of institutional shoe in the door, to get UBI to be an actual 'thing' in an institutionally grounded sense rather than a toothless abstraction and then, when the public will and public awareness has a real vivid theory of it as something real, tangible, and impactful rather than a philosophic abstraction it can - if needed -grow.
My biggest worry is that if congress had the strings this would turn into 'vote for me and I'll raise your UBI more than the other guy' - we'd raid the treasury and proceed to collapse the economy. Far better for something similar to a separate, almost Federal Reserve-like, board of economists to compare vital goods baskets and adjust according to very prude and geeky rules rather than letting political incentives run away with it.
_________________
“Love takes off the masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within. I use the word "love" here not merely in the personal sense but as a state of being, or a state of grace - not in the infantile American sense of being made happy but in the tough and universal sense of quest and daring and growth.” - James Baldwin
28 Apr 2019, 5:18 pm
sly279 wrote:
It’s quite simple all this requires taking money from people who have billions they will never use before dying and those people oppose it. They won’t be happy until they have 100% of the money and the rest of us are dead.
In 2016 there were 540 billionaires with a combined wealth of 2.4 trillion. That may seem like a lot and it is, but let's take the entire 2.4 trillion and redistribute it to the 327 million people living in the U.S. By taking LITERALLY ALL OF THEIR WEALTH you can make a single lump sum of payment of $7000 to the rest of the population. That's just over half a year of the proposed UBI.
_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."
28 Apr 2019, 5:46 pm
I think instead of a ui, we need to raise benefits for disabled and those who can’t work.
Most people don’t need ui, they make enough as is, so only the poverty level people need it so it doesn’t have to go to everyone. People making 50,000 a year with multiple cars and own house don’t need it. And they won’t quit their job to take half what they get now.
_________________
There is no place for me in the world. I'm going into the wilderness, probably to die
28 Apr 2019, 6:02 pm
sly279 wrote:
I think instead of a ui, we need to raise benefits for disabled and those who can’t work.
Most people don’t need ui, they make enough as is, so only the poverty level people need it so it doesn’t have to go to everyone. People making 50,000 a year with multiple cars and own house don’t need it. And they won’t quit their job to take half what they get now.
Most people don’t need ui, they make enough as is, so only the poverty level people need it so it doesn’t have to go to everyone. People making 50,000 a year with multiple cars and own house don’t need it. And they won’t quit their job to take half what they get now.
This is the basis of Milton Friedman negative income tax proposal. Everyone earning income above a certain threshold gets taxed at a flat rate for all the money they earn above the threshold. Everyone earning below the threshold gets awarded money at a certain rate. The result is there is a minimum basic income.
For illustrative purposes lets' set a negative rate of 50%, and a positive rate of 10% with a threshold of $20,000 per year.
Income before tax: $0
Income after tax: $10,000
Income before tax: $10,000
Income after tax: $15,000
Income before tax: $20,000
Income after tax: $20,000
Income before tax: $30,000
Income after tax: $29,000
Income before tax: $40,000
Income after tax: $38,000
I'll stop here as you get the idea. A person making $120,000 pays $10,000 in tax and fully pays for one person making $0.
_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."
techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,196
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi
28 Apr 2019, 6:07 pm
sly279 wrote:
I think instead of a ui, we need to raise benefits for disabled and those who can’t work.
Most people don’t need ui, they make enough as is, so only the poverty level people need it so it doesn’t have to go to everyone. People making 50,000 a year with multiple cars and own house don’t need it. And they won’t quit their job to take half what they get now.
Most people don’t need ui, they make enough as is, so only the poverty level people need it so it doesn’t have to go to everyone. People making 50,000 a year with multiple cars and own house don’t need it. And they won’t quit their job to take half what they get now.
The only point of contention with that - we're in a species that wants to qualitatively kill those deemed their genetic lesser, and that's largely the point of stigma. Broad-basing this is about removing stigma as a tool. It might sound like a niche concern but it's really a pervasive problem and it's baked into a lot, if not most, of the cruelty people treat each other with.
_________________
“Love takes off the masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within. I use the word "love" here not merely in the personal sense but as a state of being, or a state of grace - not in the infantile American sense of being made happy but in the tough and universal sense of quest and daring and growth.” - James Baldwin
28 Apr 2019, 6:14 pm
JonWood007 wrote:
Again it depends on the industry. I already pointed out housing in areas like SF likely wouldnt apply to that rule. The problem is lack of competition and intense supply and demand.
That won't apply to the whole economy and if any business tried to raise prices they could just go somewhere else.
This is the same fallacious argument that raising the minimum wage is futile because people will just raise their prices. I mean it's true to some extent depending on exact pressures, but ultimately the program DOES provide a HUGE boon to people overall. All in all the concern is overstated. This isnt to say that certain industries wont be more heavily affected than others though.
That won't apply to the whole economy and if any business tried to raise prices they could just go somewhere else.
This is the same fallacious argument that raising the minimum wage is futile because people will just raise their prices. I mean it's true to some extent depending on exact pressures, but ultimately the program DOES provide a HUGE boon to people overall. All in all the concern is overstated. This isnt to say that certain industries wont be more heavily affected than others though.
I already pointed out it doesn't matter if every industry can raise it prices, as if only a few industries can raise their prices they will eat up the buying power.
Everyone knows minimum wage increases CAN cause inflation. If you set a minimum wage of say $50 per hour either a lot of people would be fired or runaway inflation would happen. A minimum wage hike from say $9 to $11 in a city will have a minimal effect as most people working make more than $11 an hour to begin with. The difference between a minimum wage hike and UBI, is instead of saying people making $9 an hour now make $11 an hour you're saying every person now makes $2 an hour more. Fundamentally, they're not making any more money, you just changed the name of their pay.
Like most libertarians I would actually repeal minimum wage, but that's not the topic at hand.
_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."
