No matter which version of a UBI you support, there's one key feature that I just can't imagine happening out here in the real world. A UBI should REPLACE most existing forms of social assistance. Food stamps, unemployment insurance, some kinds of pensions, some kinds of child support, etc etc etc. Each one of those is a massive public sector industry with a lot of political weight behind it.
I live in Germany, where every market has some form of social assistance connected to it. The task of dismantling that bureaucracy would be outrageous... And quite a lot to spend on a relatively untested scheme like any UBI.
UBI doesn't prevent a fair welfare system on top of it. It doesn't have to be one or the other. UBI replacing unemployment welfare but not other welfare makes the most sense, IMO.
If UBI is not universal there is no point to doing it -- it would just be a complicated welfare system, and we already have one of those, and we certainly shouldn't throw it out just to end up creating another one.
The government already issues this amount of money. It's just inefficiently distributed through individual and corporate welfare subsidies. A UBI would replace nearly all of that.
I understand and agree with how a UBI will benefit those that are currently falling between the cracks and not receiving any assistance. I can also see the benefits of greatly simplifying the social security system. (If it was implemented in a way that was actually simple. i.e. no distinction between sick, unemployed, old, lazy)
But I don't understand why people don't believe the UBI will just become the new definition of poverty. People will still be miserable and feel like they have nothing when comparing themselves to those who get UBI and have a job.
Is UBI anything but a pipe dream in the US?
(I'm sure it's possible in some European countries in a few years)
But maybe the US should just try fix mental health, regressive taxes, low minimum wages, high housing costs, cruel prisons, and health care.
Then move on to decent unemployment benefits, day care, maternity leave and maybe in some far fetched future you can talk about UBI.
Today UBI in the US seems like wishful thinking. You have lots of low hanging fruit you could fix first. The idea of helping people who needs help isn't controversial, maybe try that first?
Don't most countries already have welfare systems that keep the lowest possible income at X already? UBI is just supposed to simplify those systems by replacing them with a single non-means-tested system.
The problem with UBI is that most versions of it would essentially liquidate social services that people would normally receive. UBI only makes sense in addition to the other parts of a comprehensive safety net (universal housing and healthcare), not as a replacement.
That's a terrible way to implement UBI. It causes the dreaded welfare trap where people are incentivized to do nothing. UBI should be unconditional. This makes it much easier to implement, removes the stigma, and most importantly avoids the welfare trap. You want people who rely on welfare to be encouraged to become self sufficient, not trap them in dependence.
I don't see how UBI will be any better than food-stamp-esque social welfare.
If a person is poor enough to need UBI, then their major concerns will be housing, food, education and medicare.
All 4 of these are taken care off (to varying degrees) by social welfare structures in place in various western economies.
I do not see why UBI would be a better alternative to instead directing funding towards welfare programs for the above 4 amenities instead ?
I dislike UBI, because it pretends the problems are not of total free-market capitalism's own making. UBI won't solve the problem by addressing the symptom. Centralized regulation and collective bargaining instead address the problem head on. Thus, I find them to be better solutions.
The only way UBI would work is if the funding source was not Income tax based, and we massively reformed what the role of government is in everyone's life.
UBI doesn't really make sense as a replacement to almost any traditional welfare programs for the simple reason that by limiting the money to only those who qualify for it, you can give more. Yet unfortunately UBI is often presented as an alternative that would supplant traditional welfare.
Why would UBI be like a loan, when there is no expectation that it will be paid back? I support it instead of food stamps because it's simpler to understand and more general, but otherwise does the same thing without onerous reporting and beurocracy
Most western social democracies already have an overlapping network of benefit systems that are essentially a patchwork UBI in disguise. The system is designed not to go without food and shelter, but the exact mechanism varies depending on what population group you belong to. There's assistance for the temporary unemployed, for students, for people with disabilities, people with long-term illnesses, etc. There's pensions for those that have aged out of the workforce, there's assistance for children. And this is only scratching the surface. Even working people get a fixed basic tax deduction under most taxation systems.
I'm not convinced that the sum total of all these benefits plus the current infrastructure that is needed to maintain, dispense and detect/punish abuse on them is significantly larger than the total expenditure on UBI.
Of course, all the people that you let go from the benefits departments initially will end up on UBI, so that's not really a big win. But eventually they will find employment elsewhere, hopefully.
Given the frankly despair-inducing statistics of what happens to poor people when they acquire a sudden cash windfall (and if you're flat broke and living on the streets, a few hundred every couple weeks is HUGE), I intend to agree.
Most UBI implementations I've seen require gutting existing welfare systems - okay, fine, but what happens to the person who inevitably squanders their money?
UBI can't replace welfare -- it cannot provide enough money to everyone to replace whole salaries. If you agree that welfare should exist to take care of people who cannot work or have expensive conditions that need to be treated then BI cannot replace it.
Sincere question - wouldn't welfare programs still be needed? I don't think 100% of UBI recipients would spend their money wisely and we'd still end up with people in need of basic services or food.
I live in Germany, where every market has some form of social assistance connected to it. The task of dismantling that bureaucracy would be outrageous... And quite a lot to spend on a relatively untested scheme like any UBI.
reply