Zuckerberg Pushes "Universal Basic Income"

[Scout26]

Your UBI proposal is putting lipstick on a pig.   Nobody shoudl get anything unless they earn it (Again, I am willing to help provide for those incapable due to disability of providing for themselves.

So no, I, and others keep, have been telling you why your pie-in-the-sky plan will not work. Because we have real world experience working and dealing with people on the dole.  Your magical system isn't going to change human nature.  

1)  If people can get their basic needs met, they generally are content to stay that way.  Lazy wins.  
2)  No matter how many safeguards or checks you think you've built in, people will find a way to beat it. (See US Tax code or the Harmonized tariff schedule)
3)  Those people receiving it will whine and politicians will buy their votes (Remember Obama Phones ??) with more freebies and or changing the rules in your magical system.
4)  You system is a dollar for dollar replacement of the current system..  Which is completely unsustainable.   Changing from a purple handbasket to yellow handbasket doesn't change the fact that we are still going to hell.
5)  I think we've more that adequately proven, time and time again, that whatever you subsidize you get more of.
6)   Name one thing the .gov does well.  Just one.    So what in the wide, wide world of sports makes you think they can do this well or even half assed ?

[RoadKingLarry]

What he said.
Tell me some more about why I should keep less of the money I earn to support leaches that WON'T do anything to support themselves?
I don't have a problem with giving someone a hand up when they've had a setback, either due to their own screw up ( the only way to ensure you never fail is to never try) or though no fault of their own.
Those demanding a hand out can damn well bugger off.

[Firethorn]

Tell me some more about why I should keep less of the money I earn to support leaches that WON'T do anything to support themselves?

Because, somewhat counter-intuitively, it's cheaper than NOT paying.  Homeless people are expensive.  Criminals are expensive.  It doesn't take many turning to crime or becoming homeless before it's hitting your pocket harder than the welfare.

I figure that within, oh, about a decade you'd be seeing a lot less generational unemployed.

I don't have a problem with giving someone a hand up when they've had a setback, either due to their own screw up ( the only way to ensure you never fail is to never try) or though no fault of their own.
Those demanding a hand out can damn well bugger off.

Well, you have those who fall on hard times, yes.  Though at this point we have too many inter-generational welfare recipients.  The problem, as I see it, is that the incentives were structured wrong.  In making sure that 'the children' were taken care of, we ended up incentivizing single mothers - even if you can't get a job or husband, pop out a few kids and you'll be taken care of.  Then see the kids who, once they get into school, basically have their mother shove every expense they can onto the school.  School lunch program?  In some areas it's school breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and all too often they go hungry over the weekends.  So - we stop incentivizing them having kids.  They can't take care of them?  Adoption.  Expensive short term, cheaper long term.  Besides, I figure they'll stop having kids quickly enough when they aren't a money train.

[/quote]

Your UBI proposal is putting lipstick on a pig.   Nobody shoudl get anything unless they earn it (Again, I am willing to help provide for those incapable due to disability of providing for themselves.

What about the disability of growing up in a welfare home where they've degraded to the point that not even the schools can, as you put it, "put lipstick on a pig"?

Much like our new housing director, you make them 'comfortable' enough that they can look towards the future(Maslow's hierarchy of needs), but uncomfortable enough that they're looking to shift.

That said, pig lipstick equivalences isn't actually an argument.  Well, it might be a "argument from incredulity" fallacy.

So no, I, and others keep, have been telling you why your pie-in-the-sky plan will not work.

Actually, by my perceptions I've received a lot of confirmations, because most of the arguments are against welfare as is, not my UBI proposal. 

I haven't seen:
1.  How somebody is going to 'live large' on $500/month as opposed to the current system where they could be receiving several thousand a month now.
2.  An explanation on how the unemployed/poor are exempt from the human syndrome known as 'greed'.
3.  Most explanations on how they're lazy and don't want to work have quoted them as saying 'they don't want to lose their benefits'.
4.  Along with that, nobody has disputed that welfare cliffs exist.  Other than those that agreed with me(more or less), it has been ignored.

So, as I've said before, in order to really debate me, you need to address my points, preferably with equal specifics. 

Because we have real world experience working and dealing with people on the dole.  Your magical system isn't going to change human nature.

1.  It's not magic
2.  It's designed to work with human nature better than the current system.  Greed is human nature, remember?

1)  If people can get their basic needs met, they generally are content to stay that way.  Lazy wins.  

Not really.  Yes, you have a proportion that are that way.  If Lazy won all the time, the median income in the US would be a lot lower.  Though I'll admit that we are dealing with the bottom end of the bell curve.

Again, back to Maslow's hierarchy.  You fill those basic needs they start looking higher.  Maybe not right now, but eventually.  Plus, 'basic needs' actually includes things like entertainment, and that costs money.

2)  No matter how many safeguards or checks you think you've built in, people will find a way to beat it. (See US Tax code or the Harmonized tariff schedule)

Okay then, either you're committing a Nirvana Fallacy (no solution is good enough unless it's perfect in every way), or you should be able to come up with some way that people could significantly game this program.  Preferably in a way that they're not already gaming the IRS/welfare agencies NOW. 

Because I'm fully aware that there will be fraud.  Question is, how much?  Realistically the best you can do is keep it to a low burn.  That's where the KISS principle comes in.  Regular IRS checks for not declaring income and such, no real means checking for eligibility, leaves you time to check for things like citizenship.

3)  Those people receiving it will whine and politicians will buy their votes (Remember Obama Phones ??) with more freebies and or changing the rules in your magical system.

And they don't do that now?  It's same deal with gun rights - we fight them.  Besides, think about all the 'vote winning' that we've seen with promised tax cuts, including cutting benefits.  Because outside of certain areas, the extreme poor are both a minority and a low-voting rate minority at that.  It's part of why gun owners are such a powerful block - we actually get out and vote.

So, without further evidence or logical arguments, I don't consider 'but they might change the program' to be a convincing argument against it.

4)  You system is a dollar for dollar replacement of the current system..  Which is completely unsustainable.   Changing from a purple handbasket to yellow handbasket doesn't change the fact that we are still going to hell.

We've been keeping up the current system for decades.  Keep in mind that my idea is that after a bit, probably a generation, the people currently on welfare will realize that working actually pays, and at least get part time jobs, cutting their dependence upon the government dime in half over the half we already cut it.  As I mentioned, by removing the incentives for single mothers, we should see a lot less kids by single mothers, along with the massive subsidies kids get, the costs from the extra criminality, etc...

5)  I think we've more that adequately proven, time and time again, that whatever you subsidize you get more of.

So my cutting the benefits those who depend completely on welfare in half(or more) we're going to see more of them?  By effectively subsidizing people working(by ensuring they see the benefit of such), we won't get more people working?  By not subsidizing single mothers we'll see more of them?

I'm well aware of the principle, as well as the limitations it presents.

6)   Name one thing the .gov does well.  Just one.    So what in the wide, wide world of sports makes you think they can do this well or even half assed ?

To get back to the mutual fund metaphor, we've already accepted that our fund managers are idiots.  They panic buy at high prices(gotta get it before it goes up even more!) and panic sell at low prices(gotta divest before it drops even more!) rather than the desired behavior of buy low sell high. 

The UBI is the index fund of mutual funds.  It's hard to mess up.  Far harder than the current mess.

There's a reason I talk about the IRS handling most of it.  They can do so without any real extra work on their part for the "tax back" portion.  Worst case, we're looking at 12-13 times as many electronic transfers, but electronic transfers are cheap.  Especially when it's a set amount each month.

[RoadKingLarry]

Because, somewhat counter-intuitively, it's cheaper than NOT paying.  Homeless people are expensive.  Criminals are expensive.  It doesn't take many turning to crime or becoming homeless before it's hitting your pocket harder than the welfare.

So, basically "protection money".
I don't fault your motives but I believe  your focusing on the wrong aspect.
The left, deliberately or otherwise has economically and socially crippled multiple generations with welfare. They have compounded the disability with the liberal controlled education system. We're now into the 4th generation of people that expect and demand to suckle at the government teat. If the flow is threatened violent responses result in a bigger teat.
Start with the education system,  actually teach them how to be functional,  productive citizens. Teach that success  comes from effort, not violence.
We have become way to soft on  crime, particularly violent crime. The emphasis, thanks in very large part to the war on drugs, is in the wrong sector.
Prison shouldn't be a pleasant experience nor looked on as inevitable. Nor should it be a warehouse for miscreants.  Hard work and education towards a marketable skillset should be the focus.
Teach people that if they want to get ahead they have to work for it legally. Criminal acts get hammered, repeat offenders get hammered extra hard.
Honest citizens shouldn't be forced at.the point.of a gun to support  worthless dregs that refuse to participate in a civil society. Whether that gun is in the hands of a criminal or the government.

[Hawkmoon]

I figure that within, oh, about a decade you'd be seeing a lot less generational unemployed.

You figure wrong. You do not understand the mentality. Take public housing as an example. I worked for a time in a public housing agency, so I have some first-hand experience.

For starters, fire up the way-back machine and return to the 1950s, right after the Koren war. I grew up in a small, rural 'burb right outside what passed for a major city in my state. Just across the town line, inside the city limits, there was a low-rise public housing complex of around 350 units. In 1955 I was in the fifth grade, and my fifth grade teacher lived there. It was nice. However it worked out, I ended up escorting his daughter to dancing classes in out town hall once a week, so one (or both) of my parents drove to his apartment, we picked up the daughter and went to class, and then brought her home again. We usually dropped in and socialized for a half hour or so when we brought her home. Their home was neat and clean, and the yards of the neighboring units were neat. Many of the residents were Korean War veterans who were adapting back to civilian life and saving up to buy their first house. Which was the intent of public housing.

Fast forward to 1980, when I joined the public housing agency in that same city. The executive director of the agency was black. When I came on board, he personally took me around to all the projects (including the one where my fifth-grade teacher had lived) to introduce me to the community leaders in each project and so that residents would see that I was with Sam. Once that had been done, he assured me I would be safe going back to the projects -- as long as I went during the day. It was made clear that, as a white man, I was NOT to go into any of the projects at night. For my own safety. One of the construction projects I was overseeing was a comprehensive remodeling of that same complex where my teacher had lived. The units were totally trashed by 1980. HUD spent over 3-1/2 million dollars renovating them, and two years later they looked like we had never touched them.

The agency also had several high rise buildings. One day maintenance had a call from a woman in one of the high rises. Her refrigerator didn't work and she wanted a new one. Maintenance repaired it, and she was informed that she wasn't going to get a new one because her existing refrigerator had been repaired. A couple of days later maintenance got another call from the same woman. She wanted a new refrigerator. She had her teen-age son and some of his friends haul the old one up to the ninth floor and drop it off a balcony. "You can't fix it now, so I need a new one."

People who think like that aren't interested in bettering themselves. Deal with it.

[Scout26]

And they don't do that now?  It's same deal with gun rights - we fight them.  Besides, think about all the 'vote winning' that we've seen with promised tax cuts, including cutting benefits.  Because outside of certain areas, the extreme poor are both a minority and a low-voting rate minority at that.  It's part of why gun owners are such a powerful block - we actually get out and vote.

So, without further evidence or logical arguments, I don't consider 'but they might change the program' to be a convincing argument against it.

  I'll point to the last three elections as proof.  2008:  Overwhelming Democratic turnout.  Especially their "Base" urban poor.  (even the rural poor went heavily for Obama.   Why ??  he promised them Free *expletive deleted*it.  (I'm sure you heard the term Free *expletive deleted*it Army ?)  And again in 2012.  The FSA turned out again to reelect Obama.  Not so much giving the House to the Democrats, but the did retain the Senate, and the damage had been done already via the ACA.   2016:  Hillary failed to energize and turn out the Democrat Base in the same numbers that Obama did.  (Why do you think she was in Philly that last day before the Election?)   People vote FOR stuff, not against it.  And you are going to vote for the person that gives you what you want, like more gun rights, lower taxes, less regulations.  Whether or not Joe Shitbird gets more or less .gov freebies might not even make the Top Ten in Things You Look For In A Candidate.   And that may not even be a campaign issue, until the ones they get to Congress and decide "the poor need more".   That's how we got here.  Each program was stand-alone program that got added because, they have housing, now they need food....now they need infant formula*...now they need a check...now they need the internet...now they need a phone.

I'm tired of paying the Danegeld....If it's to prevent them from rioting, then let it burn.  From what I have witnessed, they only harm themselves when they do that...

We've been keeping up the current system for decades.  Keep in mind that my idea is that after a bit, probably a generation, the people currently on welfare will realize that working actually pays, and at least get part time jobs, cutting their dependence upon the government dime in half over the half we already cut it.  As I mentioned, by removing the incentives for single mothers, we should see a lot less kids by single mothers, along with the massive subsidies kids get, the costs from the extra criminality, etc...

So my cutting the benefits those who depend completely on welfare in half(or more) we're going to see more of them?  By effectively subsidizing people working(by ensuring they see the benefit of such), we won't get more people working?  By not subsidizing single mothers we'll see more of them?

I'm well aware of the principle, as well as the limitations it presents.

To get back to the mutual fund metaphor, we've already accepted that our fund managers are idiots.  They panic buy at high prices(gotta get it before it goes up even more!) and panic sell at low prices(gotta divest before it drops even more!) rather than the desired behavior of buy low sell high. 

The UBI is the index fund of mutual funds.  It's hard to mess up.  Far harder than the current mess.

There's a reason I talk about the IRS handling most of it.  They can do so without any real extra work on their part for the "tax back" portion.  Worst case, we're looking at 12-13 times as many electronic transfers, but electronic transfers are cheap.  Especially when it's a set amount each month.

The IRS is filled with retards, and I use that in the most kindest sense of the word.  Contrary to the Radio and TV commercials, the IRS is made up of all-seeing, all-knowing 10ft tall giants.  They are idiots, they don't even know the laws and regulations themselves.  Unless you are pretty blatant about not paying, or trying to commit fraud, then they send you a refund check and ignore you.   The mechanic that has his own shop, the guy importing and printing the shirts for the sports teams 100+ different Park Districts.  Both in business for 15+ years.  They get audited.  The lady* that has a childcare business this year and hair salon next and each year make right at the peak of the EIC bell curve.....crickets.   (And yes, I have refused to do those returns I suspect of fraud.)   

The ACA has been one giant fluctercluck each year.  I know of no one that has been audited or even called to the carpet for lying about having insurance.  All you have to do is check the box "YES".  The only times I've seen the IRS get involved is if you got insurance through the Marketplace.  Then you have to fill out the form with you policy number(s).  Claim to have it through your employer, they don't check.  Claim to have Medicaid, they don't check.  Claim to have gotten on your own without going through Healthcare.gov, they don't check.   

Sorry, but the All-Seeing, All Knowing, Omnipotent OZ IRS?  A bunch of overwhelmed, incompetent, 'tards.

[Firethorn]

So, basically "protection money".

"Protection money" implies extortion.  Is keeping good brakes and tires on your vehicle extortion, or a simple safety precaution that actually saves money due to lowered risk of accident?

I don't fault your motives but I believe  your focusing on the wrong aspect.

Eh, it's the topic of this discussion, I've talked about schools before.  Besides, kids don't learn if they don't value the education, and when their 'plan' is to suck on the government teat like their parent, even the best funded school in the world can't help but the tiny fraction that are born self-motivated.

If the flow is threatened violent responses result in a bigger teat.

If they get violent, then jail, prison, and other punishments as appropriate.  It's expensive and I don't like it, hell, bring in caning.  The quicker they figure out that they need to contribute, the better.

Basically I agree with you, this is supposed to be a system that acts as a safety net that actually has a ladder back up that's easily accessible.

You figure wrong. You do not understand the mentality. Take public housing as an example. I worked for a time in a public housing agency, so I have some first-hand experience.

Public housing is gone under my UBI program, remember?  And you can't just tell me that I'm wrong.  You have to come up with a logical argument as to why I'm wrong. 

People who think like that aren't interested in bettering themselves. Deal with it.

On Momma's actions, here is my surprised face:


Oh, I understand the attitude.  Mom and Son deserve charges for theft and/or vandalism, as appropriate.  That said, it goes back to my core assumption:  Greed combined with messed up rewards is a perfect explanation for their actions.  Personally, I'd recommend caning in response.  It tends to leave a lasting impression while being cheap.

Here's the deal:  Under the UBI, they're renting from a commercial company.  Unless the boss of that company is rather lenient, the response to the activity would be eviction, not replacement.  And they'd know that, so therefore wouldn't do it.

It's all a question of what behavior you reward.  I don't guarantee jack except $500 per month.  You want to replace your fridge?  Buy a new one.  Just wrecked yours expecting a new one?  Tough *expletive deleted*it, eat canned food and do without refrigeration until you can save up for a new one.  It'd be quite a learning experience for many of them.

Part of the problem, as I see it, is that when they're provided housing that's nicer than they 'require', they're more or less free to convert the excess 'niceness' into other things.  They don't value it because it's non-transferrable.  With the UBI idea, they can live in the cheapest shithole they can find, and use the excess money on other things.  It's part of why it's cheaper to just provide cash to people than to try to provide benefits.  Because inevitably, people insist that they get nicer stuff than the people themselves would get if they had the choice.

I'll point to the last three elections as proof.  2008:  Overwhelming Democratic turnout.  Especially their "Base" urban poor.

Okay, the extreme poor are overwhelmingly democrat.  But they don't actually get out and vote.  If the poor actually did at rates comparable to the middle class and higher, Hillary would have been president.

Note:  I didn't say that they didn't vote liberal.  I said that they don't bother showing up to the polling stations, most of the time.  Those that do tend to vote liberal and for free *expletive deleted*it, yes, no dispute there.

The FSA turned out again to reelect Obama.

FSA?  Flexible Spending Account?  Food Services of America?  Farm Service Agency?  None seem appropriate for your use, and that's what's on the first page of a google search.

And you are going to vote for the person that gives you what you want, like more gun rights, lower taxes, less regulations.  Whether or not Joe Shitbird gets more or less .gov freebies might not even make the Top Ten in Things You Look For In A Candidate.

True that, but I've already acknowledged that my plan isn't happening anytime soon in today's political climate, so why bring it up again?  I'm just arguing the technical merits.

I'm tired of paying the Danegeld....If it's to prevent them from rioting, then let it burn.  From what I have witnessed, they only harm themselves when they do that...

I'm looking to prevent a repeat of the French Revolution, us losing our heads over this stuff.  But the problem is, after they burn their own *expletive deleted*it, are they going to stay there, or start hitting up new neighborhoods?

The IRS is filled with retards, and I use that in the most kindest sense of the word.

Well then, it's a good thing we're not actually asking them to do anything new, isn't it?  They don't need to be "giants".  Remember my mentioning the Nirvana fallacy.  *expletive deleted*it don't have to be perfect, just better than before.

Both in business for 15+ years.  They get audited.  The lady* that has a childcare business this year and hair salon next and each year make right at the peak of the EIC bell curve.....crickets.   (And yes, I have refused to do those returns I suspect of fraud.)   

That's because they know they can't make their money back from the lady, she doesn't have enough income to matter.  The real shops? They do. 

The ACA has been one giant fluctercluck each year.

I'm able to summarize my plan in a single page.  The ACA was several phonebooks of lawmaking that nobody read the entirety of before passing.

Again, Actively managed mutual fund vs index fund.                                                                                                                     

I know of no one that has been audited or even called to the carpet for lying about having insurance.

You might not have, but my mom(an accountant) has.  Quite extremely expensively for a few of them.

All you have to do is check the box "YES".  The only times I've seen the IRS get involved is if you got insurance through the Marketplace.  Then you have to fill out the form with you policy number(s).  Claim to have it through your employer, they don't check.  Claim to have Medicaid, they don't check.  Claim to have gotten on your own without going through Healthcare.gov, they don't check.

Funny thing is, I live in a state that's exempt(we don't have any plans that meet the affordability requirements for the penalty), and both Tricare and the VA send me letters showing that I was covered.

Sorry, but the All-Seeing, All Knowing, Omnipotent OZ IRS?  A bunch of overwhelmed, incompetent, 'tards.

Since when is an omnipotent IRS required?  Nirvana fallacy again.  Keep in mind that I was restricting the changes they need to make to only the tax tables.

Summary:
1.  I know they're 'lazy' pieces of *expletive deleted*it.  I also know that many are quite cunning in their own way and will respond to any reward system in a greedy and lazy way.  You know, just like the rest of us.  We're just on different local optimizations.  So the trick is to avoid poor optimizations, to make it such that there isn't any local optimums while dependent upon welfare.
2.  I know that there will be Fraud, Waste, and Abuse.  There always is, especially in an organization as big as the IRS.  You apply the usual controls against it and move on with life.  If things were as bad as you try to imply it is, we'd have a completely non-functional government.
3.  Trying to use a vastly more complicated policy as an example of how my drastically simpler policy will fail is unmoving.  Somebody doesn't have to be able to assemble a working engine from scratch to change the oil.

[KD5NRH]

People who think like that aren't interested in bettering themselves.

Don't care.

I mean, literally, I don't care about those people at all.  Frankly, at $500/mo and no extras, they'd be cheaper than they've been for the last several decades, so screw 'em. 

What I want is a system that rewards the ones who try, which the $500-base-and-tax-anything-more-to-make-it-back system does.  They are out there, and I've known quite a few.  Heck, I've been one.  If I got $100/week and anything I earned came off the top of that, there wouldn't be any point in doing any job that I couldn't get at least $150/week take home pay from.  Maybe more if there are other benefits on the line.  Instead, giving the $500/mo then taxing any earnings up to $24,000 at 25% means that you'd get to keep $0.75 of every earned dollar on top of the $500, so even earning $50 a week on some spotty part time work becomes worthwhile.

So really, I'd much rather have Danny Dontcare enjoying his bunk and beans than Sally Singlemom passing up part time work while her kid's at school because it will cost her more in benefits than she could hope to earn.  Even if there are ten times as many Dannys as Sallys, it's worth it to reward the ones who do try to improve themselves.

[KD5NRH]

3.  Trying to use a vastly more complicated policy as an example of how my drastically simpler policy will fail is unmoving.  Somebody doesn't have to be able to assemble a working engine from scratch to change the oil.

More relevant analogy; do you think all the Framers of the Constitution put together could make sense of the current tax code?

[Firethorn]

More relevant analogy; do you think all the Framers of the Constitution put together could make sense of the current tax code?

Nope. 

I mean, literally, I don't care about those people at all.  Frankly, at $500/mo and no extras, they'd be cheaper than they've been for the last several decades, so screw 'em. 

Thank you for your kind words and a short & sweet explanation that I couldn't really come up with.  The work of a great writer is being about to be succinct. 

The completely non-working, completely dependent upon welfare, but not disabled portion of the population is actually pretty small.