A welfare overhaul proposal

[MorkandMindy]

Interesting idea there. One thing that I'd like to add to that is that people receiving a UBI have some kind of education / vocation requirement so that they can gain some skills to come off of or reduce their need for UBI. I know that kind of defeats the purpose of UBI, but hear me out. The change in the economy has hit us so fast with Covid. Work from home was increasing but with Covid, it accelerated us by five years according to some technologists I work with. So UBI can help but if someone receives it for two years without advancing some skill set, they are going to be way behind the eight-ball.

The UBI/UBD plan is both necessary and sufficient. I would agree there is a need to assess and keep track of the people receiving it.

I would propose that after assessment, the recipient would receive an opportunity to work with a group of people in an existing company.

The company might be working on infrastructure, the service sector, in production either of an industrial or a handicraft activity.

Alternatively, a UBI UBD applicant with a very focused business plan could at some point develop into becoming the core of one of the aforesaid companies.

This can't be a one-size-fits-all scheme for the same reason that some people will need UBI and others will not.

 

[MorkandMindy]

I'm not suggesting applicants will go without money until the assessment etc. is completed, but the funding will start immediately and assessment and such also.

This is not substantially different from what goes on at present.

Suppose for example you get a job in the 'defense' industry. It is government funded, and you might be working on a project, it might turn out to be a failure or it might be a great success.

The government is already in the equation on a large number of jobs.

This might be considered an extension of government power, but the difference is not significant.

 

[MorkandMindy]

The point of UBI/UBD is to replace the existing slow complex inefficient patchwork that is our welfare system with something quicker, simpler, more reasonable and that does not prevent people from getting back to work.

 

[Percivale]

For someone with a good job UBI doesn't really affect how much money they get. The UBI money just replaces some of the tax credits and deductions we deal with at tax time, and whatever extra carbon tax and such they pay that funds UBI. The difference is the more secure feeling of knowing if they get sick or laid off their income won't drop to zero.

 

[Percivale]

What bothers me is UBI undertaken nationally would amount to people having the same purchasing power after being gifted with a whatever sum the government would decide was appropriate as they had prior to being gifted with more money.


The only actual result of UBI would be to increase the power, complexity and influence of the government.

No one is better off for having more money when that extra money does not give one more purchasing power.

I get the impression you didn't read the comment you replied to. If you did read it, it might be helpful to read about the logical fallacy called "begging the question."

 

[grasping the after wind]

I get the impression you didn't read the comment you replied to. If you did read it, it might be helpful to read about the logical fallacy called "begging the question."

What question do you think my post begged?

 

[Percivale]

What question do you think my post begged?

The question of whether UBI would cause inflation. I was suggesting that with the way I suggested funding a small UBI it would not cause inflation, you didn't respond to that reasoning.

 

[MorkandMindy]

... The difference is the more secure feeling of knowing if they get sick or laid off their income won't drop to zero.

I didn't notice on first reading what a good posting this is.

The chronic worry caused by income insecurity, of possibly ending up on the street one day with nothing, has a bad effect on a person's creativity, happiness, ability to concentrate, and emotional stability.

UBI/UBD would do far more for this country than throwing away the same amount (more actually) on propping up the banks and stock market.

 

[MorkandMindy]

The constitution gives Congress the authority to tax and spend for the general welfare, and that includes welfare in the more specific modern sense. I support having about the current amount of welfare spending, but it should be considerably simplified.
I like the idea of Universal Basic Income, but the tax rate needed to give everyone $1000 a month would be too high. I propose instead to have a smaller basic income funded by 3 different sources, each paid quarterly so that people would receive one check each month. I'd replace the standard deduction with a $3000 tax credit with $2400 refundable, which would mean a six hundred dollar check every three months. I'd implement a tax on carbon and other mining to pay the second quarterly check, The third quarterly check would be funded by corporate taxes or a sales tax. Each of the latter two payments would vary depending on revenue, but would aim for an average of $500 a quarter. These payments would go to all adult Americans, and children would be provided for by implementing Romney's 2020 Family Security Act, which pays a monthly child tax credit of 250-350 per child, and pays for it with cuts to other welfare programs. Sen. Romney's Child Tax Reform Proposal Aims to Expand the Social Safety Net and Simplify Tax Credits/

This basic income would replace most welfare programs, but there should still be some housing assistance in large cities, food banks, disability support, and some unemployment insurance, though at lower levels than currently since they would just supplement the regular monthly checks rather than support people by themselves. Most other means tested welfare, like SNAP, TANF, and WIC, would be abolished.

Social Security should be gradually replaced by the Homestead Capital Act, a program that would give everyone the borrowing power to use loans to buy stocks whose proceeds would first pay off the loan, then pay everyone's retirement. The Capital Homestead Act: A Plan for Getting Ownership, Income and Power to Every Citizen

You've done a good job with the numbers, I see your point and that the current 'welfare' 'system' is not fit for purpose; it isn't well, it isn't fair, and it isn't much of a system.

By way of understanding why it is so bad, I've been wondering if the reason is because economic commentary in the media and in debates is based on an understanding of 2021 economics which has not benefited from what has been learned since 1921, and particularly since 1929.