by Outcast_Searcher » Mon 16 Jul 2018, 16:14:45
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cog', 'Y')ou need to run the math on UBI and get back to us on how it works. Going to means test it? Bill Gates gets his $1000/month? Does Laquisha with her five kids from five different fathers get $6000/month. Do you get it from birth onwards or is UBI part of your graduation present for finishing high school? What about kids who don't finish high school? Going to let them starve and no UBI for you.
I'm thinking I could live on $1000/month, as an 18 year old, with a bit of camping out, with still plenty of money for weed and booze. You really want to go down that road?
So if you don't get $1000/month until you are 18, how does baby momma feed those five kids until they get of age to collect? Going to let those kids starve or give the baby momma EBT(Food Stamps AND UBI AND free medical, AND subsidized housing?)
Nothing is more apparent to me then when you are start a government program its impossible to end it. OBamaCare, SSDI, and Medicare Part D are all good examples of programs with soaring costs and no one can eliminate.
Cog, you ask good questions, and you make good points. NO system is perfect.
A true UBI wouldn't be means tested. That would be part of the simplicity -- not needing an expensive and potentially wasteful, corrupt, or incompetent meanss testing structure. That seems to be what most folks talking about a UBI favor, thus the U (Universal) part.
Personally, I'd favor means testing. I'm pretty sure you, I, and everyone in the upper middle class and above can survive without a UBI. Like everything else, such decisions involve trade-offs.
I've seen examples when it's adults 21 or over, no one on SS, and its means tested, where it costs about a $trillion, which is roughly what we spend on wealth transfers excluding SS and Medicare today. So it could be roughly a wash if restricted thus, and those other programs are all eliminated. Liberals will go beserk as a group, of course. And of course, bigger groups cost more, and then "how do you pay for it?" is a key question, just like any other program (which liberals and conservatives BOTH tend to "forget" to ask if they like a government program).
In my mind, you don't get more money for having more kids. Period. Having kids should imply personal responsibility. Can't take care of them? Then don't have them. Or the state takes them away until you prove you're stable and CAN take care of them. Once people understand that such actions have consequences, I strongly suspect many poor people will behave more rationally re having kids they can't take care of. Obviously many liberals will have 9 kinds of fits over this -- but I don't see them coming up with a workable financial system over time by constantly increasing the pork.
And yeah, everyone won't use the money equally wisely. Do they today with money they earn (or get from social benefits)? HELL NO -- so that's not a new issue.
Don't like 18? We could go with 21, but if the parents throw them out and they can find no work when they're 18 that's kind of brutal, which is why I chose 18. Again, others will disagree.
Some folks, like me, don't have a problem with doing things like reducing or even eliminating SS if there is a UBI. If you can now get 1000 a month for life from age 18 on for not working, why should you get SS at all? Again, trade-offs.
Medical is a tough one. First world societies seem to have decided that people have a "right" to health care whether they pay for it or not. That's not a UBI issue, that's a societal issue.
To me, you don't have rights to things that cost society money like food, water, medical care, housing, etc. automatically just because some liberals think so, but that seems to be how the first world is now working.
The good news is there are various experiments with a BI for various groups. Such experiments will yield interesting data, hopefully. Hell, I just read that Stockton CA is cranking one of those up. Yes, recently BANKRUPT Stockton, CA. The article didn't mention how they're paying for that, OF COURSE.
...
OK. Here's a question for you. Let's say you're right and we just cut 'em all off and no one (at least who is healthy and mentally competent) gets ANY basic benefits from the government as far as wealth transfers which aren't paid for from now on. Period. (So I'm excluding SS and Medicare here for now, as beneficiaries "contribute" part of their paychecks over their working lives to receive those benefits).
So how do we handle it when then, predictably, the "poor" start rioting, looting, robbing, and killing people to "get what they need"? Do we go full constant police/military intervention and kill such people on sight? (The courts couldn't begin to keep up, even if they jails had a place to put such people, en masse).
Just pretending like that approach won't cause big problems is a non-starter, IMO.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.