Universal Income.

Belz... said:
Well the B to me implies compensating for income below a certain value.

What's the point of giving a thousand bucks to a millionnaire?
Click to expand...

It's already been covered, but if you're means testing the UBI, it's just cash welfare, which is something else.
 
Belz... said:
Well the B to me implies compensating for income below a certain value.

What's the point of giving a thousand bucks to a millionnaire?
Click to expand...

Universal programs tend to be much more popular and make it politically more difficult to gut.

People love gutting welfare that helps only the filthy poor, but try to snatch someone's medicare or social security benefits and you'll pull back a bloody stump.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Universal programs tend to be much more popular and make it politically more difficult to gut.

People love gutting welfare that helps only the filthy poor, but try to snatch someone's medicare or social security benefits and you'll pull back a bloody stump.
Click to expand...

Okay. But it doesn't really answer the question: why give money to those who don't need it? For the same amount you could give more to those in need, instead. And I don't include myself in there. I make 58k a year and I'm not complaining.
 
Belz... said:
Okay. But it doesn't really answer the question: why give money to those who don't need it? For the same amount you could give more to those in need, instead. And I don't include myself in there. I make 58k a year and I'm not complaining.
Click to expand...

As Suburban says, it will be more popular and as I mentioned, its probably more efficient to tax it back rather than means test.

Everybody gets a check every month for the same amount and a progressive income tax, simple. Everyone earning under some amount gets a check, there's a bit more accounting to be done and figuring what counts as income etc.

Its effectively the same thing except, everyone feels like they're getting a piece and there's less math with a UBI and progressive income tax vs a Not quite universal BI.
 
Belz... said:
Okay. But it doesn't really answer the question: why give money to those who don't need it? For the same amount you could give more to those in need, instead. And I don't include myself in there. I make 58k a year and I'm not complaining.
Click to expand...

That is the answer. Universal programs are popular and are more likely to survive in the long term. This is a non-trivial factor for the viability of a social program.

Another benefit of non-means tested programs is that there's no disincentive to earn money. There's no trap where poor people might risk losing a cash or cash equivalent benefit should they earn more than the means testing threshold. On UBI, it's always good for the individual to maximize their earning potential.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
That is the answer. Universal programs are popular and are more likely to survive in the long term. This is a non-trivial factor for the viability of a social program.

Another benefit of non-means tested programs is that there's no disincentive to earn money. There's no trap where poor people might risk losing a cash or cash equivalent benefit should they earn more than the means testing threshold. On UBI, it's always good for the individual to maximize their earning potential.
Click to expand...

Hmm.. I guess I'm just not comfortable with giving money to people who don't need it.

But you make a good point.
 
I've heard it argued that we spend more on administering means testing than we save trying to stop people collecting benefits they don't need. If that's true we're effectively paying a premium for spite, and making life more difficult for people genuinely in need at the same time. I guess those are features for some, of course.
 
gnome said:
I've heard it argued that we spend more on administering means testing than we save trying to stop people collecting benefits they don't need. If that's true we're effectively paying a premium for spite, and making life more difficult for people genuinely in need at the same time. I guess those are features for some, of course.
Click to expand...

Yeah I thought about that, too. I might actually be less expensive to skip the administrative phases and just send everyone the same check. Obviousy the richer citizens will benefit less from that money, proportionally, so maybe it's all the same anyway.
 
gnome said:
I've heard it argued that we spend more on administering means testing than we save trying to stop people collecting benefits they don't need. If that's true we're effectively paying a premium for spite, and making life more difficult for people genuinely in need at the same time. I guess those are features for some, of course.
Click to expand...

The other benefit is that it removes the stigma associated with getting assistance forms he government. Everyone is getting it, not just dirty poor people.


See twitter about spending the stimulus versus twitter about spending food stamps. And that had at least some means testing applied.
 
Belz... said:
Yeah I thought about that, too. I might actually be less expensive to skip the administrative phases and just send everyone the same check. Obviousy the richer citizens will benefit less from that money, proportionally, so maybe it's all the same anyway.
Click to expand...

I'm rich, let's suppose. If I get $x from the government and my take home pay is reduced by $x then I haven't actually benefitted and the cost to the government is almost nil.
 
Belz... said:
Okay. But it doesn't really answer the question: why give money to those who don't need it? For the same amount you could give more to those in need, instead. And I don't include myself in there. I make 58k a year and I'm not complaining.
Click to expand...

That is an important aspect of UBI.

One reason is eliminating most of the bureaucracy needed to assess eligibility for payments.

Another is that a means-tested payment will always produce a point where additional income is offset by loss of benefits. At this point, it becomes difficult to gain from increased earnings.

UBI functions as a negative income tax for those on very high incomes. This would be compensated for by adjustments of tax thresholds and brackets. It doesn't actually cost anything to give somebody a payment and simultaneously take it back through taxes.
 
A number of people have advocated the UBI replacing government unemployment benefit and pensions. Well the single age pension in Australia is over $1900 a month, so the UBI would have to be more than that (unless the government wants to lose an election in a landslide and never get back in).

Still sound a good idea?
 
lionking said:
A number of people have advocated the UBI replacing government unemployment benefit and pensions. Well the single age pension in Australia is over $1900 a month, so the UBI would have to be more than that (unless the government wants to lose an election in a landslide and never get back in).

Still sound a good idea?
Click to expand...

That's about £1,000 right? Quite a bit more than the UK pension which is about 75% of that.
 
lionking said:
A number of people have advocated the UBI replacing government unemployment benefit and pensions. Well the single age pension in Australia is over $1900 a month, so the UBI would have to be more than that (unless the government wants to lose an election in a landslide and never get back in).

Still sound a good idea?
Click to expand...

Sure, as long as it does replace rather than augment.
 
lionking said:
A number of people have advocated the UBI replacing government unemployment benefit and pensions. Well the single age pension in Australia is over $1900 a month, so the UBI would have to be more than that (unless the government wants to lose an election in a landslide and never get back in).

Still sound a good idea?
Click to expand...

I don't see it replacing pensions. At least not in the US. Most US pensions have nothing to do with the federal government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom