Universal Income.

Everyone gets a thousand a month but you can only spend it on Bibles, firearms, and truck nuts.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Everyone gets a thousand a month but you can only spend it on Bibles, firearms, and truck nuts.
Click to expand...

That proposes an interesting question.

Much of our current welfare system is needs based and limited use. Food stamps, fraud aside, is only supposed to be used to buy food as an example. Section 8 housing can only be used on housing. And so on.

One element of UBI is that many proponents claim it will replace other forms of means tested welfare. What happens if some dumbass blows their UBI on nonessentials and can no longer meet their own needs? Do they just fall through the cracks?

Would UBI be exempt from creditors? One can imagine a situation where someone gets into debt so deep, they might not have enough UBI left after the monthly collection to actually meet their needs.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
That proposes an interesting question.

Much of our current welfare system is needs based and limited use. Food stamps, fraud aside, is only supposed to be used to buy food as an example. Section 8 housing can only be used on housing. And so on.

One element of UBI is that many proponents claim it will replace other forms of means tested welfare. What happens if some dumbass blows their UBI on nonessentials and can no longer meet their own needs? Do they just fall through the cracks?
Click to expand...

I do believe that is one of the primary objections to UBI.

Would UBI be exempt from creditors? One can imagine a situation where someone gets into debt so deep, they might not have enough UBI left after the monthly collection to actually meet their needs.
Click to expand...

It would have to be untouchable to creditors, no?
 
Again as I said earlier "Oh don't worry, this new government program will be super-efficient because it will replace a bunch of older inefficient government programs" is what always get claimed and pretty much literally never happens.

We will still have welfare and government pensions and Social Security and Medicaid and whatever with UBI.
 
Thermal said:
I do believe that is one of the primary objections to UBI.



It would have to be untouchable to creditors, no?
Click to expand...

The parallel that comes to mind is young enlisted soldiers. They basically have all their living expenses paid for by Uncle Sam and yet many still find themselves deep in debt because of bad decisions, usually in the forms of expensive cars and fast marriages.

Every military base parking lot is chock full of Dodge Chargers, Jeep Wranglers, and F-150 trucks that are accruing rust and 18% APR because every dumbass private that just graduated basic training had money burning in their pocket.

I know this population and culture isn't comparable to the general public, but it's an interesting natural experiment.
 
Last edited:
We're getting dangerously close to the "The public is too stupid to trust with their own finances, the government should decided how they spend their money to protect them" subtext becoming text here people.
 
JoeMorgue said:
We're getting dangerously close to the "The public is too stupid to trust with their own finances, the government should decided how they spend their money to protect them" subtext becoming text here people.
Click to expand...

There's no need to worry, though, because UBI is impossible. You have declared it so, and so it must be, so it shall never be a problem. There's no need to actually run the experiment, as I suggested above.
 
JoeMorgue said:
We're getting dangerously close to the "The public is too stupid to trust with their own finances, the government should decided how they spend their money to protect them" subtext becoming text here people.
Click to expand...

True. The military is a bad example and I regret even suggesting that the unusual culture there might apply broadly.

I do wonder if UBI can work if it can be subject to unrestrained debt collection. It kinda defeats the purpose if an indebted person, either through their own foolishness or other circumstances, is no longer able to use their UBI to do anything besides pay down debt.

The sentiment you identify is pretty much the unspoken assumption undergirding all our means tested programs. The government often goes through great lengths, even when it costs much more to administer, to not give poor people money under the apparent belief that these people will simply squander it.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
True. The military is a bad example and I regret even suggesting that the unusual culture there might apply broadly.
Click to expand...

We are unbelievably stupid and irresponsible, true.

I do wonder if UBI can work if it can be subject to unrestrained debt collection. It kinda defeats the purpose if an indebted person, either through their own foolishness or other circumstances, is no longer able to use their UBI to do anything besides pay down debt.
Click to expand...

Well that's is sort of the problem.

"Money" being a universal means of barter is sort of the point. If you start giving people money that is already pre-earmarked for this or that it's not really money anymore, it's a voucher or ration card or whatever.
 
JoeMorgue said:
We are unbelievably stupid and irresponsible, true.



Well that's is sort of the problem.

"Money" being a universal means of barter is sort of the point. If you start giving people money that is already pre-earmarked for this or that it's not really money anymore, it's a voucher or ration card or whatever.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about earmarking the cash, I'm wondering if it would be wise to allow debtors to garnish UBI payments, intercepting the funds before they get disbursed to an indebted individual.

In a hypothetical UBI scheme, should UBI be open to wage garnishment or not?
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
I'm not talking about earmarking the cash, I'm wondering if it would be wise to allow debtors to garnish UBI payments, intercepting the funds before they get disbursed to an indebted individual.
Click to expand...

Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.

In a hypothetical UBI scheme, should UBI be open to wage garnishment or not?
Click to expand...

Yes. Or at least not more or no less than wages now.

Either we're giving them money or we aren't.

If you're trying to sneak in a little stealth "But we'll just... help them a little with deciding how to spend it" stop. If increased government management of personal finances is your goal here, own it.

Now you want to argue that wage garnishment itself is good/bad or needs to be more/less used that's fine, but that's a different issue.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
True. The military is a bad example and I regret even suggesting that the unusual culture there might apply broadly.

I do wonder if UBI can work if it can be subject to unrestrained debt collection. It kinda defeats the purpose if an indebted person, either through their own foolishness or other circumstances, is no longer able to use their UBI to do anything besides pay down debt.

The sentiment you identify is pretty much the unspoken assumption undergirding all our means tested programs. The government often goes through great lengths, even when it costs much more to administer, to not give poor people money under the apparent belief that these people will simply squander it.
Click to expand...

Surely the same objection can be levelled at any welfare payment, whether it's means tested or not?
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
In a hypothetical UBI scheme, should UBI be open to wage garnishment or not?
Click to expand...

I would be against the idea of anybody being able to garnish it for any reason.
Seems to go against the whole idea of it being money that everybody gets, regardless of anything else. Debtors can recover money from people in other ways, including taking them to court.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.



Yes. Or at least not more or no less than wages now.

Either we're giving them money or we aren't.

Now you want to argue that wage garnishment itself is good/bad or needs to be more/less used that's fine, but that's a different issue.
Click to expand...

A similar example is social security. It can be garnished for government imposed debts (student loans, child support, etc) but not for consumer debt (credit cards, car loans, etc). The law prevents social security funds from being garnished in a bank account if that's all the person has to live on.

I suppose a fairly simple solution would to put a minimum income floor when it comes to debt collection, and if that floor was higher than UBI, you wouldn't have to worry about the debt collector taking the food off the table.
 
lionking said:
Yes, and he brought in franking credits which lost the election.

Anyway, of marginal relevance. My view, to repeat, is that a UBI is of minor, if any, social benefit, and is politically toxic.

Others disagree, that’s fine. But I’m getting pretty annoyed that I’m criticised for not seeing the overwhelming beauty of a massive wealth redistribution. Not liking a UBI is not being unskeptical.
Click to expand...

I feel like this is progress. We've moved your view of UBI from 'financial suicide' to 'political suicide'.

When the biggest hurtle is political in nature I have hope.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
I suppose a fairly simple solution would to put a minimum income floor when it comes to debt collection, and if that floor was higher than UBI, you wouldn't have to worry about the debt collector taking the food off the table.
Click to expand...

*Shrugs* As long as you're also fine with not allowing people under that minimum income floor to go into debt in the first place, sure.
 
JoeMorgue said:
*Shrugs* As long as you're also fine with not allowing people under that minimum income floor to go into debt in the first place, sure.
Click to expand...

Creditors have to asses credit risk as part of their business. It's not in the public interest to allow them to bleed people dry and put them at the mercy of charity in order to cover their bad loans.

I imagine the situation would be similar to how it is now. People with no other income besides UBI would probably have a hard time finding reputable creditors and instead have to rely on high interest, sketchy vendors. In theory, a UBI would make such an option less appealing because the need for money among the poorest people would be less dire.

People still might make bad financial choices, but hopefully this would cut down on people facing the no-win situation of either facing eviction or taking out a high interest loan.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
No. I engage with this topic purely as a thought experiment.

Having poor people suffer is a pretty important part of the American political system. Even modest welfare proposals that address this misery of the underclass is met with massive resistance, a sweeping program like this is out of the question. If anything, I see this country on track to further dismantling our tattered social safety net, not improving it.
Click to expand...

Alaska already has a small version of UBI, it is universal income, but not at all enough to be considered basic. More like $1,000 per year oil dividend. Grow that by a factor of 10 and it starts to get somewhere. (I think it is actually shrinking instead of growing, though.)

Also, a town in California tried something similar, to good results, but it was a short term experiment.

I could see a smaller state implementing something along the lines of a UBI in a bid to attract remote workers. The problem being that most small states are run by right leaning politicians and workers attracted by this sort of program would be left leaning.

It isn't going to be national policy anytime soon, but I would hope that local level experiments get some traction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom