Is Universal Basic Income the answer?

[rjs330]

You don't like the basketball court example? Then I've got a better one. The Child Tax Credit has been in effect for over two decades. It results in direct cash payments to individuals. As I recall, your objection was that a UBI is giving tax money to individuals.

I don't believe in the Child Tax Credit either. Because it gives people money in taxes they haven't paid. But even that is a bad example for you since the Cold tax credit does not apply to every American. It only applies to those who have kids AND only earn a certain amount of money. So once again it's NOT the same thing.

 

[rjs330]

By that logic, any and all social welfare programs are immoral. If you accept that some are okay, then you can't use the argument against UBI.

We are talking UBI not all social welfare programs. We are not talking about giving someone a helping hand who has fallen in hard times. We are talking about a program that gives UBI to every single person.

 

[rjs330]

One more time. 70% of our taxes go to welfare programs. And there are those who want more? We can't afford what have now. Just how much debt are you going to saddle our kids with?

 

[rjs330]

UBI doesn't work that way.

OP, line1:


Sorry, I guess this is a bit clearer:

Okay and just how much VAT tax would we need on what we buy to pay for this UBI?

 

[trophy33]

Finland tries 2-year experiment
... In 2017 and 2018, 2,000 randomly chosen unemployed Finns received a monthly basic income of €560 instead of the usual unemployment benefits — with no applications, no forms and no bureaucracy. They were allowed to earn as much money on the side as they wanted.

According to the study, the participants were happier and more relaxed because of the basic income. The financial security offered them the opportunity to attempt new projects, without the risk of possibly going bankrupt. But the study didn't record any negative effects on the country's labor market: On average, the participants worked just six days more per year than the people in the control group without a basic income.
Universal basic income: An option for Europe? | DW | 28.11.2020

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Hard work won't even get you by sometimes. We have special programs for specific kinds of "not getting by", such as social security disability, unemployment, etc. But each of these has its own complicated qualification protocol and hoops you have to jump through to get approved, and these programs do not cover all types of "not getting by". A UBI would be simple to administer.

Amen on that. I have a friend who has to prove every six months that she is STILL paralyzed from a stroke four years ago.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Not hardly true. And those programs are only for those who need them. Realistically only less than 10% of people need those programs. A UBI is a waste of money because 90% of people don't need it.

This is the only reasonable argument against a UBI. I suggest you give up on all the other arguments about people being lazy and stick with one that might actually work for you.

But I can even say something about this argument. Actually, two things.

(1) Programs that benefit only people struggling to get by encourage people to stay in that category so as not to lose the benefits. A UBI does not have this problem because if someone is getting by with the help of the UBI and they have an opportunity to get a good paying job, their is no fear of losing their benefits if they get the good job, and so they are more likely to get that good job, making a UBI more effective for lifting people out of poverty than programs that cut off as soon as you reach a certain threshold of income.

(2) Expanding programs that benefit only those in desperate need is not popular among conservatives. That is why Social Security was passed as a universal program and not a means-tested program. Conservatives only tolerated the passage of Social Security if it was universal.

 

[rjs330]

(1) Programs that benefit only people struggling to get by encourage people to stay in that category so as not to lose the benefits. A UBI does not have this problem because if someone is getting by with the help of the UBI and they have an opportunity to get a good paying job, their is no fear of losing their benefits if they get the good job, and so they are more likely to get that good job, making a UBI more effective for lifting people out of poverty than programs that cut off as soon as you reach a certain threshold of income.

This is why Welfare needs to be altered. Welfare just encourages people to stay on it. This the whole lazy thing. Welfare to work is a better option and not nearly as expensive as UBI.

Especially when we are looking at less that 10% of the people getting it.

 

[rjs330]

(2) Expanding programs that benefit only those in desperate need is not popular among conservatives. That is why Social Security was passed as a universal program and not a means-tested program. Conservatives only tolerated the passage of Social Security if it was universal.

That was yesterday's conservatives. Just like liberals were really today's conservatives. Things have changed. It's something those on the left now struggle with.

Today's conservatives are more for giving welfare only to those that need it. Not for everyone. AND we are for only giving it for only for a period if time. People need to get off welfare if they are able bodied and able to work. There is no excuse for sponging off others.

 

[Pommer]

That was yesterday's conservatives. Just like liberals were really today's conservatives. Things have changed. It's something those on the left now struggle with.

Today's conservatives are more for giving welfare only to those that need it. Not for everyone. AND we are for only giving it for only for a period if time. People need to get off welfare if they are able bodied and able to work. There is no excuse for sponging off others.

If you didn’t have sponges to rail against, who would you rail against?

 

[gaara4158]

That was yesterday's conservatives. Just like liberals were really today's conservatives. Things have changed. It's something those on the left now struggle with.

Today's conservatives are more for giving welfare only to those that need it. Not for everyone. AND we are for only giving it for only for a period if time. People need to get off welfare if they are able bodied and able to work. There is no excuse for sponging off others.

People should be able to support themselves with a job without the help of welfare, but that would mean raising wages, and we can’t have that.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

We are talking UBI not all social welfare programs.

Then I would suggest framing your arguments better. Because if you argue that what makes a UBI immoral is the fact that it takes money from those who earned it and gives it to those who did not, then that would constitute an argument against all tax-funded social welfare programs.

 

[rjs330]

People should be able to support themselves with a job without the help of welfare, but that would mean raising wages, and we can’t have that.

By and large people do.

 

[rjs330]

Then I would suggest framing your arguments better. Because if you argue that what makes a UBI immoral is the fact that it takes money from those who earned it and gives it to those who did not, then that would constitute an argument against all tax-funded social welfare programs.

No because as a compassionate society we are willing to lend a hand when necessary. Not for years on end. Unless of course they are unable to work. It shouldn't be a lifetime thing for most people.

 

[rjs330]

If you didn’t have sponges to rail against, who would you rail against?

Liberals, progressives, socialists I could go on.

 

[Pommer]

Liberals, progressives, socialists I could go on.

Ah, I see.
You’re someone who loves his country but doesn’t “love” like 45% of the people who inhabit it. Okay. Good to know!

 

[rjs330]

Ah, I see.
You’re someone who loves his country but doesn’t “love” like 45% of the people who inhabit it. Okay. Good to know!

It was a joke.

 

[gaara4158]

By and large people do.

Then welfare is by and large a non-issue. Why dedicate so much energy towards removing it from such a small sliver of the population?

 

[rjs330]

Then welfare is by and large a non-issue. Why dedicate so much energy towards removing it from such a small sliver of the population?

No one is trying to remove it.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

No because as a compassionate society we are willing to lend a hand when necessary. Not for years on end. Unless of course they are unable to work. It shouldn't be a lifetime thing for most people.

I don't see how that changes your claim that taking money from those who earned it and giving it to those who have not is immoral.