Zuckerberg Pushes "Universal Basic Income"

[makattak]

Edit:
And as far as Utah and their anti-poverty efforts, I want to point out that the article mentions that they're investing significant resources into anti-poverty efforts, it's just that as much of the labor is donated, it looks cheaper if you look at it in a pure cash flow basis.  If you adjusted for the 'goods in kind' deals, it's probably as expensive as many of the higher spending states.  Still more effective though.

I'm more than willing to bet that the "volunteer" labor is far more efficient than government-paid labor.

[Scout26]

CAn someone explain to me why there would be a "downward spiral in wages" ??   It's not like Bob the unemployed homeless guy is suddenly going to come in and take you six figure IT job.  He's going to be sweeping up, or taking out the garbage, or harvesting vegetables or doing other menial tasks.  What happened to "Doing the jobs Americans won't do ??   I would bet any amount that if we say, started giving folks shelter halves, beans, rice, and gruel, there would be real competition from Americans to do day labor and harvest fruits and veggies.  It would at least give them a place to start their way up the ladder.

And Firethorn.  What you mention with "Pooling their checks" does happen.  Witness the "Baby Momma" phenomenon.  You honestly think those women are putting the Baby Daddy on the housing application??  And Baby Daddy is getting a check also.   And Illegals do it as well, with several living in one apartment, getting all kinds kinds of .gov assistance while working under the table.

You think your idea is to make the system "less bad".  My contention is that current system needs to been blown up and done away with completely.  If I was completely cruel, I would blow up the entire system, and not provide for any replacement, but since that really isn't an option,  I'm willing to provide at least enough sustenance to allow those able to work to do so.  For those unable (Due to physical or mental conditions, although they would have to be pretty extreme...as I have real life example of those with crushing physical disabilities able to provide for  themselves), then yes.  I have no problem with providing them a place to live and food beyond beans, rice and gruel.  Yes, bring back mental hospitals, if we can "warehouse" old people in nursing homes, then we can do the same for those incapable of work, and beyond their family's ability to care for them.

[makattak]

CAn someone explain to me why there would be a "downward spiral in wages" ??   It's not like Bob the unemployed homeless guy is suddenly going to come in and take you six figure IT job.  He's going to be sweeping up, or taking out the garbage, or harvesting vegetables or doing other menial tasks.  What happened to "Doing the jobs Americans won't do ??   I would bet any amount that if we say, started giving folks shelter halves, beans, rice, and gruel, there would be real competition from Americans to do day labor and harvest fruits and veggies.  It would at least give them a place to start their way up the ladder.

And Firethorn.  What you mention with "Pooling their checks" does happen.  Witness the "Baby Momma" phenomenon.  You honestly think those women are putting the Baby Daddy on the housing application??  And Baby Daddy is getting a check also.   And Illegals do it as well, with several living in one apartment, getting all kinds kinds of .gov assistance while working under the table.

You think your idea is to make the system "less bad".  My contention is that current system needs to been blown up and done away with completely.  If I was completely cruel, I would blow up the entire system, and not provide for any replacement, but since that really isn't an option,  I'm willing to provide at least enough sustenance to allow those able to work to do so.  For those unable (Due to physical or mental conditions, although they would have to be pretty extreme...as I have real life example of those with crushing physical disabilities able to provide for  themselves), then yes.  I have no problem with providing them a place to live and food beyond beans, rice and gruel.  Yes, bring back mental hospitals, if we can "warehouse" old people in nursing homes, then we can do the same for those incapable of work, and beyond their family's ability to care for them.

The current system requires that the recipients have a modicum of honor and shame. However, our culture has been mocking honor and shunning "shame" (for certain things at least) and somehow we're surprised that the welfare system is corrupt. (Please replace the word "welfare" with almost any other government system.)

MUCH of what was designed in years past is now failing because it was designed for a different people. Sometimes it's simply a matter of technology (We're living longer, for example), but a lot is because the character of the people was significantly different. There were warnings of the effect on people's character, but they were usually dismissed.

Now, although many of the programs are partly responsible for the degradation of that character (as noted by Senator Moynihan- before he was a Senator), but they are not the sole issue.

Honestly, looking at history, I'm fairly certain that only a widespread return to Christ¹- and, thereby, Christian morals- can reverse the trend we are seeing in moral decline. It HAS happened in the past (the Great Awakening, for example), so I'm not going to say it will never happen. I am, though, rather frightened by what would be necessary to do it, given that 9/11 seemed to be having that effect... for about a month.


1: Which is impossible to be accomplished by humans (i.e. NOT WITH THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT), but, fortunately, there is Another for whom nothing is impossible. Additionally, too many "Christians" aren't living by Christ's teachings, either.

[KD5NRH]

And Firethorn.  What you mention with "Pooling their checks" does happen.

And in the systems Firethorn proposed, it's fine; two people pooling their $500 checks to have $1000 a month are still not going to be living it up all that much.  So now they can split a $300/mo slum somewhere instead of each paying $200 in a bunkhouse.  That leaves them with $350/mo each, and they can share a beater car too, so call it $300/mo each.  Phones knock that down to $250/mo and they're probably going to blow that on beer and smokes.  Still no XBox, fancy rims, etc.  4 living in a simple enough slum might get some better toys, but that many adults sharing what amounts to an efficiency apartment is pretty undesirable to the vast majority of Americans.

For those unable (Due to physical or mental conditions, although they would have to be pretty extreme...as I have real life example of those with crushing physical disabilities able to provide for  themselves),

Yup.  I once worked with a guy who had full use of one arm and zero legs, due to a spinal injury suffered when he was a high school dropout roofer.  He used the money he got from that to get a GED and was working his way through college doing tech support because he could still answer a phone and use a one handed keyboard.  (Other arm worked to some degree, but very little control over the hand.)

[makattak]

And in the systems Firethorn proposed, it's fine; two people pooling their $500 checks to have $1000 a month are still not going to be living it up all that much.  So now they can split a $300/mo slum somewhere instead of each paying $200 in a bunkhouse.  That leaves them with $350/mo each, and they can share a beater car too, so call it $300/mo each.  Phones knock that down to $250/mo and they're probably going to blow that on beer and smokes.  Still no XBox, fancy rims, etc.  4 living in a simple enough slum might get some better toys, but that many adults sharing what amounts to an efficiency apartment is pretty undesirable to the vast majority of Americans.

Yup.  I once worked with a guy who had full use of one arm and zero legs, due to a spinal injury suffered when he was a high school dropout roofer.  He used the money he got from that to get a GED and was working his way through college doing tech support because he could still answer a phone and use a one handed keyboard.  (Other arm worked to some degree, but very little control over the hand.)

Let me do some examples:

Local, 3 bedroom apartments: $800. Large living room area, nice decks. Pool and gym room part of the amenities. Cable+ Internet, $50. Xbox $300 (one time expense)

Used Moped: $500 (one time expense). No insurance necessary. Phones: $30 a month.

So let's add that up: $940 per month for Xbox life and mopeds. 3 guys living in there, each with their own "hog" and phone leaves each ~$185 a month each for eating. That's a little over $2 per meal and cereal and milk are pretty cheap.

I'm fairly certain that a LOT of young men would be perfectly content with such a set-up. Add some random piecemeal work and they'd be pretty comfortable. That's without anyone sharing a nicely-sized bedroom, btw.

[MechAg94]

And in the systems Firethorn proposed, it's fine; two people pooling their $500 checks to have $1000 a month are still not going to be living it up all that much.  So now they can split a $300/mo slum somewhere instead of each paying $200 in a bunkhouse.  That leaves them with $350/mo each, and they can share a beater car too, so call it $300/mo each.  Phones knock that down to $250/mo and they're probably going to blow that on beer and smokes.  Still no XBox, fancy rims, etc.  4 living in a simple enough slum might get some better toys, but that many adults sharing what amounts to an efficiency apartment is pretty undesirable to the vast majority of Americans.

Yup.  I once worked with a guy who had full use of one arm and zero legs, due to a spinal injury suffered when he was a high school dropout roofer.  He used the money he got from that to get a GED and was working his way through college doing tech support because he could still answer a phone and use a one handed keyboard.  (Other arm worked to some degree, but very little control over the hand.)

You are assuming that is their only income or at least the only handouts they get.  Those people can find motivation when it comes to continuing to be lazy or getting drugs.  I heard the guy in my story died recently.  I don't know the reason.  I hope his kids turn out better than him.

Also, the current system is deliberately sabotaged over and above the actual welfare programs in addition to fraud on the user end.  SS disability, welfare, food stamps, tax returns, school food programs, unemployment, etc (I am sure there are more I never heard of) are all used as welfare programs and each has a big chunk of fraud attached to them.  Food stamps could already be used to only supply bread and gruel.  It is deliberately rigged to allow users to buy all sorts of stuff and give them far more money than needed to buy real food.  From what I have heard SS disability fraud has become industrialized and I have no idea if there is any attempt at all to enforce anything.  

I think the only long term solution is to get rid of all of them.  I don't think there is a way to set up a system that won't evolve into a bloated mess even if it is set up very well initially.  We just do not have the consistent leadership at the federal level for that to happen.  Even my idea of pushing it down to the local level doesn't solve that.  It just makes it so people like me in Texas don't have to pay for fraud in Hoboken, New Jersey.  Maybe people in Hoboken will take notice when their local welfare is being scammed right and left, maybe they won't.  I would rather force people to use their creativity and ingenuity to make their own living rather than scam taxpayers through the govt.  In the US, basic food is cheaper than most countries around the world.  People shouldn't need government help just to eat.  

I think free medical care is likely a better use of government "charity" than direct welfare and even that would likely be screwed up and mess up the medical services for everyone else.

[makattak]

Also, the current system is deliberately sabotaged over and above the actual welfare programs in addition to fraud on the user end.  SS disability, welfare, food stamps, tax returns, school food programs, unemployment, etc (I am sure there are more I never heard of) are all used as welfare programs and each has a big chunk of fraud attached to them.  Food stamps could already be used to only supply bread and gruel.  It is deliberately rigged to allow users to buy all sorts of stuff and give them far more money than needed to buy real food.  From what I have heard SS disability fraud has become industrialized and I have no idea if there is any attempt at all to enforce anything. 

Anecdotally, I have heard that it's far easier to scam your way onto disability than it is to do it legitimately. The scam doctors/lawyers know exactly the right words to say/type and legitimate doctors write the legitimate issues.

[Firethorn]

I'm more than willing to bet that the "volunteer" labor is far more efficient than government-paid labor.

Which is why it's still more effective.  I was just pointing out that Utah is spending a lot more on anti-poverty efforts than the traditional indicators would suggest.  It's just being paid through "church taxes."  While one could argue that that's not mandatory, if you're going to be part of the church it pretty much is.

The trick is how to do some of the same things elsewhere, where you don't have church investment.

You are assuming that is their only income or at least the only handouts they get.

That's the thing, we're encouraging them gaining more income, by not taking away their benefits as soon as they get a job.  We're doing it wrong if the government is still giving out other handouts, and if they're getting handouts from private parties that's between them and the private party.

Also, the current system is deliberately sabotaged over and above the actual welfare programs in addition to fraud on the user end.  SS disability, welfare, food stamps, tax returns, school food programs, unemployment, etc (I am sure there are more I never heard of) are all used as welfare programs and each has a big chunk of fraud attached to them.

Citations on the "big chunks of fraud"?  Because from everything I've read, tax fraud is orders of magnitude more money than welfare fraud.  Well, there's medicare fraud as well, but the 'living expenses' type welfare programs are too little money per submission to bother much.

Local, 3 bedroom apartments: $800. Large living room area, nice decks. Pool and gym room part of the amenities. Cable+ Internet, $50. Xbox $300 (one time expense)

Hmm...
$800/3 = $267
$267 + 17 + 30 = $314, leaving $186, as you say.

However, I have some problems:
1. A used moped is NOT a 'one time expense'.  You might not need insurance in your area for it, but what about gas?  Even if it's only $10/week?  Plus, it'll wear out eventually.
2.  What about utilities.  How does a $100 electric bill each month change things?  What about, besides the Xbox, the TV to play it on?  What about games?  Clothing, etc...?

So, out of the $186 you lose ~$33 for utilities, $20 for the XBox & TV($600 for hardware, 3 year lifespan, rounded up to include games), $20 *per* moped, $50 for cellphone, and you're down to $63/month for food.

It works out better with 4 people per apartment...

I'm fairly certain that a LOT of young men would be perfectly content with such a set-up. Add some random piecemeal work and they'd be pretty comfortable. That's without anyone sharing a nicely-sized bedroom, btw.

If such a quality of life is so acceptable to so many, why aren't more people living like that, just doing enough piecework to get by?  My answer:  It's not really acceptable to all that many people.  They WILL work.  If too many find $500/month acceptable to live like that, reduce the amount given.

Anecdotally, I have heard that it's far easier to scam your way onto disability than it is to do it legitimately. The scam doctors/lawyers know exactly the right words to say/type and legitimate doctors write the legitimate issues.

I have heard the same as well.

[MillCreek]

Anecdotally, I have heard that it's far easier to scam your way onto disability than it is to do it legitimately. The scam doctors/lawyers know exactly the right words to say/type and legitimate doctors write the legitimate issues.

Working in healthcare, it is certainly my belief that this is true.  In some parts of the US, there are organized rings of attorneys and healthcare providers that do disability evaluations on an assembly line basis.  In my literature, I periodically read about the Feds busting them for various types of financial fraud. This also is the case for personal injury cases, such as auto accidents and slip and falls.

[KD5NRH]

Local, 3 bedroom apartments: $800. Large living room area, nice decks. Pool and gym room part of the amenities. Cable+ Internet, $50. Xbox $300 (one time expense)

That's one seriously cheap 3 bedroom.  I'm in a fairly cheap area and a 1/1 with bills paid is going to be $450-550/mo.  More bedrooms run the price up fast because of the college kids frequently rooming up and used to it to the point that you really only have to beat the cost of each getting their own place by a small margin. 

Used Moped: $500 (one time expense). No insurance necessary. Phones: $30 a month.

Here, a street legal moped has to be insured and registered.

I'm fairly certain that a LOT of young men would be perfectly content with such a set-up.

If they're happy with it, good for them.  I'd probably hang out with them and gain some tips on economizing.  What I'm tired of seeing is the voluntarily unemployed cruising around in a vehicle newer than their last job experience and partying every week.

[Scout26]

Anecdotally, I have heard that it's far easier to scam your way onto disability than it is to do it legitimately. The scam doctors/lawyers know exactly the right words to say/type and legitimate doctors write the legitimate issues.

Witnessed it first hand.  While barfing in the SS Disability doc's garbage can the day after an 8 hour chemo treatment.  He deemed  that I was still capable of working an 8 hour day.

[Firethorn]

That's one seriously cheap 3 bedroom.  I'm in a fairly cheap area and a 1/1 with bills paid is going to be $450-550/mo.  More bedrooms run the price up fast because of the college kids frequently rooming up and used to it to the point that you really only have to beat the cost of each getting their own place by a small margin. 

Just looked, the utterly cheapest 3 bedroom advertised in my town is $909, minimum. $1021 is more realistic, being the average of the bottom 3 advertised places.  The number 3 being selected from job requirement to get 3 bids/quotes on everything.

Here, a street legal moped has to be insured and registered.

I think this is true in most areas.  It's really cheap, but even $50/month matters when you're limited to $500.

If they're happy with it, good for them.  I'd probably hang out with them and gain some tips on economizing.  What I'm tired of seeing is the voluntarily unemployed cruising around in a vehicle newer than their last job experience and partying every week.

Indeed.  So what if they find some cheap work to make their lives better.  Isn't that the whole point?  Encourage them to join the workforce?

[Scout26]

No, the point is to get them off the dole ENTIRELY...

[Firethorn]

And getting them working is step 1, remember?

At 25% income tax, they're off it at $24k earned.  About $12/hour with a full time job.

[Pb]

Some years ago, I read that the fed gov spends over $60,000 a year in anti-poverty programs for every family in poverty in the USA.

Large amounts of welfare and other money go to low-ish income people who are well above the poverty line (earned income tax credit for example).

There is also massive administration involved. 

All of this creates "entitled" clients for the system we have now. 

And shall I mention that the biggest takers in the country are the elderly, who typically cash out far more than they put in in taxes?  (medicare, SS)

[KD5NRH]

At 25% income tax, they're off it at $24k earned.  About $12/hour with a full time job.

Right. And since "no long term unearned benefits at all unless you're truly and legitimately disabled" (I'm willing to grant quite a bit of short-term, say, 90 days every 5 years or similar, benefits to those who have a temporary setback) would never fly, dropping $6k/yr per adult, (and let's go ahead and void that for any that are incarcerated or out of the country for the entire year, that will save a few billion) recovered in taxes from the non-destitute, beats the heck out of paying tens of thousands to the ones that are gaming the system.

[Scout26]

And getting them working is step 1, remember?

At 25% income tax, they're off it at $24k earned.  About $12/hour with a full time job.

Here's the flaw in your plan.....THEY. DO. NOT. WANT. TO. GET. OFF. IT.   It allows them to lay around and do whatever they want, whenever they want, and still have a roof over their head, food in the bellies, the latest iPhones, wheel spinners, tattos, nails, and hair-dos. And you expect them to work to pay for all that stuff, when they can just collect a check each month and a several thousand dollar EIC tax refund check from their fake hair, nail or babysitting business ??  Please... You are deluded.

When there's not money for all that and they are eating beans and rice for fourth or fifth day in row...picking some vegetables may not seem so bad after...

[Firethorn]

Some years ago, I read that the fed gov spends over $60,000 a year in anti-poverty programs for every family in poverty in the USA.

Surprises me 0%.  And yeah, for somebody able to game the system...

And shall I mention that the biggest takers in the country are the elderly, who typically cash out far more than they put in in taxes?  (medicare, SS)

Even if you figure in the interest they could have earned over the period between paying taxes and getting benefits back?

Here's the flaw in your plan.....THEY. DO. NOT. WANT. TO. GET. OFF. IT.

Given that them wanting to get off it isn't part of my plan, how can it be a flaw?  The whole idea is that we set it up so that their situation(financial) is always improved by earning more!

   It allows them to lay around and do whatever they want, whenever they want, and still have a roof over their head, food in the bellies, the latest iPhones, wheel spinners, tattos, nails, and hair-dos. And you expect them to work to pay for all that stuff, when they can just collect a check each month and a several thousand dollar EIC tax refund check from their fake hair, nail or babysitting business ??  Please... You are deluded.

Okay, now I know the problem - you're arguing against the current welfare system, not my proposal.  I can't even call it a proper strawman argument.  But I'm having fun, so let's dissect.
Latest Iphone: $550.  They're spending $50 more than they get(under my plan) a month for it.  Replace every 2 years, that's still $23, plus $50 for the plan to go with it.  $73 out of $500 spend.
Wheel spinners:  I googled this, to try to get prices, but found that it can be a $50 for 4 bolt-ons.  So let's say 'fancy rims' at $800 total.  3 years on it, $22/month.  But you need a car to go with it...  $300/month for car/insurance/fuel.
Personal appearance:  Let's just say $100/month. 

Leaving them with -100/month to pay for food and shelter.  I guess living in the car is an option...

I eagerly await a budget where they can afford all this without working on $500/month.  While not eating beans and rice all the time...

EIC tax refund?  The EITC would be gone, remember?  Instead, at least at lower incomes, there's a flat 25% tax rate.  An example of where you're debating the current system, not my proposal.

But oh wait, "fake hair, nail or babysitting business" - you mean they're running a fake business?  Or a business in fake hair?  Doesn't that kind of contract the "just collect a check each month"?  Are you sure it's me that's deluded?  Because it's looking to me that you're accusing a mirror, not me.  I don't know about you, but I consider those working in cosmetics to be working.  You might not consider it to be worthy work, but those people creating wigs, weaves, shining up nails and such are actually working.  Same deal with babysitting, though we tend to call it 'child care' these days.

In any case, if they're working at a hair or nail salon or at child care, they're earning money through labor.  At which point, why the hell are you still concerned about what they're spending their money on?

Let's say they clear $2k/month.  25% tax, They get to keep $1.5k of their income, get the $500, leaving them with $2k.  $24k/year, which is actually enough to have a modest apartment, vehicle, food, and such.  They're effectively OFF the benefit.  Let's say that they only earn $500.  They pay $125 in taxes, get the $500, leaving them with $875.  I doubt anybody here is going to think that $875/month is going to pay for the luxuries you talk about, but it's still a hell of a lot better than $500.  At a consistent $875, that's a lot less Ramen that they're eating.  They might be able to afford a moped.  A new game for their playstation occasionally.  Be able to have internet.  Etc...

Earn $1,257?  Around a full time minimum wage?  With the UBI they end up with $1,443, paying $314 in taxes.

But I receive a military retirement check every month.  I receive a check for over DOUBLE what I'm proposing to give these people, every month.  Guess what?  I'm still working.  My retirement check each month is basically my house payment.  If I really restricted my spending - move to a cheaper area, find some roomies, I might be able to live off of my retirement check.  Hell, at that point I'd probably qualify for some assistance.

But what do I get for that extra money?  I can probably afford to have only 1 roomie, and share a vehicle between the two of us.

What are you going to get on $500/month?  Not much past food and shelter, I think.

When there's not money for all that and they are eating beans and rice for fourth or fifth day in row...picking some vegetables may not seem so bad after...

...What other foods are you going to be able to afford on $500/month?  Are you living in a tent or something?

[MechAg94]

Okay, now I know the problem - you're arguing against the current welfare system, not my proposal.  I can't even call it a proper strawman argument.  

No, he is arguing against ANY system of free money/free necessities.  You are the one that is deluded into thinking YOUR system will work where nothing like it ever has.  The only thing your system will accomplish is that you will feel better.  

IMO, the feeling better part is the case with most govt charity.  People in the US give more to charity than most other countries despite our taxes and govt welfare, but that isn't enough.  People can't just give their own money to help others and be satisfied.  They have to use politics to give other people's money away also.  It just ends up being a political vote buying scheme in the end and initial intentions amount to very little. 

[Firethorn]

No, he is arguing against ANY system of free money/free necessities.  You are the one that is deluded into thinking YOUR system will work where nothing like it ever has.  The only thing your system will accomplish is that you will feel better.  

Pretty sure you mean "she", not "he".

And we're back to people yelling "you're deluded" into mirrors.  Either that or you haven't been paying attention much.  Or have you forgotten already that our government already spends obscene amounts of money on "anti-poverty" efforts that do anything but?  Hint:  Attacking the messenger isn't a valid debate tactic.  All you're doing is convincing me that you don't have any valid points against it, thus must attack me personally, rather than, you know, making valid critique points of the idea itself.

Because please remember that I propose this as a reformation of the situation as it currently is.  Where, as somebody else mentioned, we're spending something like $60k in antipoverty spending per family in poverty.  Is it really a bad thing for me to "feel better" when we lower government expenditures and actually decrease poverty at the same time?

People in the US give more to charity than most other countries despite our taxes and govt welfare, but that isn't enough.

Well, I wouldn't say 'despite', because our taxes and government welfare are also substantially LOWER than most other countries.

People can't just give their own money to help others and be satisfied.  They have to use politics to give other people's money away also.  It just ends up being a political vote buying scheme in the end and initial intentions amount to very little.

Well, you can argue that, but I'd argue that that ship has already sailed.  But rest assured, that I would switch to opposing it if it becomes a "vote buying scheme", because, well, assuming that "everything" will become a vote buying scheme isn't a useful position for improving our government, life, etc...

As for spending other people's money, well, view it like education.  Even if you don't personally have a kid in school, you still benefit from the kid growing up to be a educated productive member of society.  Same deal with anti-poverty efforts.  I mean, do you like spending the money to keep the resulting criminals in jail, treating the homeless in emergency rooms that send our healthcare expenses through the roof, etc...?

I'm not proposing spending any money that isn't already being spend, just spending it more efficiently.

For example, by not requiring children to get aid, by turning them into an expense rather than a benefit, we should see a lot less welfare babies within a couple years.  With fewer children born into poverty, the amount of inter-generational poverty should decrease sharply.

[Scout26]

The flaws in your plan/scheme that you are not grasping:

1)  People will work awfully hard to keep their .gov freebies.  And they will not go an seek any gainful employment to improve their lot as long as their necessities are provided for.  How many people worked to get out of places like Cabrini Green and Robert Taylor homes in Chicago....Damn few.  The vast majority were content to have an apartment, food stamps and TV.  Despite all the crime, gang activity, drugs, shitty schools, all the other horribleness of Public Housing they didn't lift a finger to improve their lot in life.  They did however, work awfully hard to keep their .gov freebies (and demand more)

2)  On a homeless shelter one morning, after listening to several people bitch about lack of jobs and opportunities, a guy came offering a job for 2-3 days at $8.45/hr waving signs for a store closing at various locations.  You would have thought the guy came in farted in everyone's face they way they turned their backs on him to hide.  He even bumped it up to $9.50.  No takers.  He left, with zero takers.  Why?  I asked several of the homeless and "If I make (that much) money, I either get my benefits cut by that amount or lose my bennies entirely."  THey know the rules of the game and how to maximize their bennies to avoid doing any actual work.   

2)  Politicians are corrupt, they need votes to get elected and they will buy them with .gov money, no matter what your scheme thinks.  

3)  We need to work on ways to get them off the dole and working.  Not keeping them on the dole and working the occasional side job (Drug Dealers already do that.)

4)  It like a version of Socialism...."It will work this time, because we'll put the right people in charge and do it this way so people can't lie and cheat and beat the system."    Sorry, but IT. WON'T. WORK.  




P.S.  And when I mentioned the fake Nail Care, Hair Care, and/or Daycare businesses.  I meant fake as in "exists on paper only", and often only one or two sheets.  One being at P&L that surprisingly showed a profit right at the max amount of EIC for the # of kids she had, and the other being a "flyer" for her business done in crayon.  And lots of misspellings.   We make copies for our files and complete the return.  We are not the IRS.  You sign on the bottom line that this is true and correct.  Even though everyone knows it's all a lie.

[MechAg94]

Pretty sure you mean "she", not "he".

And we're back to people yelling "you're deluded" into mirrors.  Either that or you haven't been paying attention much.  Or have you forgotten already that our government already spends obscene amounts of money on "anti-poverty" efforts that do anything but?  Hint:  Attacking the messenger isn't a valid debate tactic.  All you're doing is convincing me that you don't have any valid points against it, thus must attack me personally, rather than, you know, making valid critique points of the idea itself.

Because please remember that I propose this as a reformation of the situation as it currently is.  Where, as somebody else mentioned, we're spending something like $60k in antipoverty spending per family in poverty.  Is it really a bad thing for me to "feel better" when we lower government expenditures and actually decrease poverty at the same time?

Well, I wouldn't say 'despite', because our taxes and government welfare are also substantially LOWER than most other countries.

Well, you can argue that, but I'd argue that that ship has already sailed.  But rest assured, that I would switch to opposing it if it becomes a "vote buying scheme", because, well, assuming that "everything" will become a vote buying scheme isn't a useful position for improving our government, life, etc...

As for spending other people's money, well, view it like education.  Even if you don't personally have a kid in school, you still benefit from the kid growing up to be a educated productive member of society.  Same deal with anti-poverty efforts.  I mean, do you like spending the money to keep the resulting criminals in jail, treating the homeless in emergency rooms that send our healthcare expenses through the roof, etc...?

I'm not proposing spending any money that isn't already being spend, just spending it more efficiently.

For example, by not requiring children to get aid, by turning them into an expense rather than a benefit, we should see a lot less welfare babies within a couple years.  With fewer children born into poverty, the amount of inter-generational poverty should decrease sharply.

Maybe you should tear you eyes away from the mirror.  No amount of improvement, restructuring, and replacement will do what you want.  The only way to force some people to fend for themselves is to cut them off.  You can try to make it "work", but in the end you are dealing with human nature which hasn't changed and no govt program will change it. 

No money giveaways will ever be done efficiently or effectively by govt.  Even the legitimate things we want govt to do are constantly mixed with corruption, waste, and greed and have to be watched.  With things like welfare, there are no results on the other end, just more people wanting money and more demands to increase budgets to politicians wanting the votes.  When is the last time we have seen reports on how much money is used for administration, and how much actually goes to recipients?  We don't even see that for social security.  It didn't start out that way.  You system won't start out that way either.  It will end up that way sooner than you think. 

[Firethorn]

1)  People will work awfully hard to keep their .gov freebies.

Indeed.  Well, let me restate that in a more accurate way:  People will seek the highest gain for the lowest cost.  Any arguments against this?
Corollary:  People will often take current gain, even if it's a lower amount, than future gain.  This allows people to get hung up on 'local maximums'.

And they will not go an seek any gainful employment to improve their lot as long as their necessities are provided for.

Repeating this does not make it true, nor does it convince me without you providing more evidence.

How many people worked to get out of places like Cabrini Green and Robert Taylor homes in Chicago....Damn few.  The vast majority were content to have an apartment, food stamps and TV.  Despite all the crime, gang activity, drugs, shitty schools, all the other horribleness of Public Housing they didn't lift a finger to improve their lot in life.  They did however, work awfully hard to keep their .gov freebies (and demand more)

Great!  You just listed a number of problems with the past welfare system, some of which extend to the current system.  Of course, given that I want to overthrow the current system, it's not very moving, you know?

Also, you seem to take it as a given that they were 'unwilling' to 'lift a finger', yet they would do so in order to 'keep their .gov freebies'.  Sounds an awful lot like work to me, you know?  Keeping all those 'freebies'?

Here I am getting accused of being delusional, but you sit there and are spouting contradictory premises within the same paragraph!

As for places like you mention, well, I've actually read up on them.  Talk about welfare traps to end all welfare traps.  Putting those addresses down on work applications, for example, was a death knell for most of them.  Straight into the circular file.

2)  On a homeless shelter one morning, after listening to several people bitch about lack of jobs and opportunities, a guy came offering a job for 2-3 days at $8.45/hr waving signs for a store closing at various locations.  You would have thought the guy came in farted in everyone's face they way they turned their backs on him to hide.  He even bumped it up to $9.50.  No takers.  He left, with zero takers.  Why?  I asked several of the homeless and "If I make (that much) money, I either get my benefits cut by that amount or lose my bennies entirely."  THey know the rules of the game and how to maximize their bennies to avoid doing any actual work.   

Oh golly gee!  People are looking to maximize their quality of life.  Should we be surprised?  Shocked?  Condemn the people who recognize that taking such a short term job could end up with them on the street,considerably worse off?

Now consider if they were under my proposed UBI.  They take the job, earn ~$200, pay $50 in taxes, and still get their $500.  They make $650 that month, rather than $500, the government is ahead $50(yay!), the dude looking for workers might just build some contact points with the better workers when he needs more.  The workers get a bit of work experience, a contact point, a little extra money, and the knowledge that working makes life better.

2)  Politicians are corrupt, they need votes to get elected and they will buy them with .gov money, no matter what your scheme thinks.  

Trump got elected.  Not all politicians are that corrupt, and the solution is to badger them into doing the right thing.

3)  We need to work on ways to get them off the dole and working.  Not keeping them on the dole and working the occasional side job (Drug Dealers already do that.)

Again, make up your mind!  Earlier, you just implied that even a 2-3 day job would be good, here you say that them 'working the occasional side job' is bad!

Otherwise, it's a good thing that that's what I'm trying to work on, right?  By eliminating the local maximum/welfare cliffs, we make it such that even said temporary jobs, which are often stepping stones to permanent employment, improve the lot of the unemployed.  Yes, that means that we end up paying out money to people who are working.  My deal:  So what!  If they can see themselves as better off by working more an smarter(higher pay), they will do so!

The guy probably would have gotten takers at $7.25/hour if he'd offered it 'under the table' so it didn't impact their benefits.  Illegal, but profitable.

And here we see yet another contradiction in your arguments:  It's not that they weren't willing to work.  It's that they weren't willing to work for free!  The 'for free' part being due to the loss of benefits if they worked, as opposed to simply not being willing to work at all.

4)  It like a version of Socialism...."It will work this time, because we'll put the right people in charge and do it this way so people can't lie and cheat and beat the system."    Sorry, but IT. WON'T. WORK.

Snerk.  Reduced to sayings, are we?  Again, yelling and impassioned but meaningless quotes doesn't actually make your arguments stronger.

Here's the deal:  In my suggestion the trick is that we're minimizing having people 'in charge'.  The benefits program is statically defined in the simplest terms possible.  $500/month, every citizen not in prison or on the run.  Done.  Lying, cheating, and beating the system?  There's no disability to fake.  Having more kids results in your benefits being spread to more people, meaning that you earn less money.  Incentive to have kids as a single mother on the dole?  Gone.  Incentives to NOT work, because it costs you benefits?  Gone.

So, once more:  Since my UBI is substantially different than traditional welfare, arguments against traditional welfare are unmoving.  You know, because I want to get rid of it as well?

P.S.  And when I mentioned the fake Nail Care, Hair Care, and/or Daycare businesses.  I meant fake as in "exists on paper only", and often only one or two sheets.  One being at P&L that surprisingly showed a profit right at the max amount of EIC for the # of kids she had, and the other being a "flyer" for her business done in crayon.  And lots of misspellings.   We make copies for our files and complete the return.  We are not the IRS.  You sign on the bottom line that this is true and correct.  Even though everyone knows it's all a lie.

Ah, understandable.  You know, as cryptic as EITC is, it takes some intelligence to figure out the amount to claim to maximize it? 

So my question is, will they still bother making a fake business if EITC is gone and there's a 25% net tax owed on the claimed income?  If they actually have income that they're not claiming, well, that's something for the IRS to figure out itself as well, right?  And finding that they have income that they didn't claim(Capone, anybody?) is easier than finding that they didn't have income that they did claim.

Maybe you should tear you eyes away from the mirror.

Very weird mirror I'm looking at then.  Must be magic.  I mean, I'm not yelling or anything, but I see two people looking into their own mirrors and yelling.  Me, I'm eating popcorn.

No amount of improvement, restructuring, and replacement will do what you want.  The only way to force some people to fend for themselves is to cut them off.  You can try to make it "work", but in the end you are dealing with human nature which hasn't changed and no govt program will change it. 

Here's the thing.  "Some People".  You also have the drowning metaphor - somebody who's drowning, can't even keep their head above water, aren't capable of seeing the shore, even if it's close by and would otherwise be easy to reach.

The idea behind the UBI is to given them just enough assistance that they can see the shore.

As for 'cutting them off', well, do you enjoy cutting off your nose to spite your face?  Various studies have shown that cutting people off is actually about the worst thing that you can do.  It makes for a great catch phrase, doesn't work so well in reality.  Interventions work better.

No money giveaways will ever be done efficiently or effectively by govt.  Even the legitimate things we want govt to do are constantly mixed with corruption, waste, and greed and have to be watched.  With things like welfare, there are no results on the other end, just more people wanting money and more demands to increase budgets to politicians wanting the votes.  When is the last time we have seen reports on how much money is used for administration, and how much actually goes to recipients?  We don't even see that for social security.  It didn't start out that way.  You system won't start out that way either.  It will end up that way sooner than you think.

Thing about welfare is that it's laced with requirements.  Requirements require administration to enforce.  They provide spots for fraud to be used.

Meanwhile, the Alaska PFD doesn't have much problem with corruption.  It's a static payment which would require lots of fake records being created to really exploit, there's a long lead time, thus it's easier to file fake tax returns with the federal government.  There, at least, you don't have the evidence of your felony hanging around for most of a year before you get the money.

But as is, you're just throwing generic platitudes around, so I'll pay them about as much mind as I do other platitudes:  none.  Come up with some specific arguments.

[Scout26]

I give up.  I worked with and around people who both did what they could to improve their lot in life, and others who didn't lift a finger.   The difference I found was that those that never took a dime or .gov money kept working to improve themselves and their jobs.  The one who took welfare didn't do anything to improve themselves or their lot in life.

And perhaps I should clarify about "Worked awfully hard to keep their .gov freebies."  to "whined awfully hard about keeping their .gov freebies."   Also the reason they didn't want to work holding sign boards was that they considered it 1) W-O-R-K,  2) they thought it was "degrading", and 3) the were afraid is would cut into their freebies.   See they were already getting a UBI, why work ??

My favorite was the guy that had been homeless and on welfare for 15 years, whining about how this county should give him "more" in his check because it was a more affluent area then others that he's been in.   That's when I turned in my helpers apron and told the volunteer coordinator, "*expletive deleted*ck these parasites."

So you just keep going with your pie-in-the-sky plan.  I'm sure it will work if we can only put the right people in charge. 

[Firethorn]

I give up.  I worked with and around people who both did what they could to improve their lot in life, and others who didn't lift a finger.

First up, sorry for the delay, I wanted to make a thoughtful reply to this.

I'm thinking that the problem may be that you don't actually understand my proposal, as you keep making arguments against the current system, that are not really applicable to mine.  So let me summarize:
The existing situation:

We are spending way too much money on welfare and anti-poverty efforts.  Worse, we're spending the money ineffectively, in that it's tending to entrench people in poverty, rather than getting them out of it.  We're spending more than enough to lift everybody out of poverty, assuming we just gave every family in poverty the cash.  It is wasteful.

Complicating matters is that due to there being a huge number of different programs, each with their own requirements.  This imposes a large administrative cost to our anti-poverty efforts, reducing the amount of money available for aid programs.  Due to the large number of programs, those unskilled, new to welfare, are unlikely to maximize their benefit, creating calls for even more benefit programs.  Meanwhile, those skilled at gaining benefits, such as multi-generational welfare recipients, are capable of qualifying for many programs, allowing for a better quality of life than somebody working full time at a low to medium wage.  Sometimes by engaging in fraud.

The core problem is basically that it incentivizes the wrong things.  One of which is the existence of "welfare cliffs" where earning more money will result in losing more than the money's worth in benefits.  For example, if earning $14,999 or less qualifies you for free medical care, but at $15,000 this benefit is cut off completely, it is a welfare cliff worth several thousand dollars.  One might need to go "instantly" from $14k to $18k or more in order for the wage increase to translate to a real increase in income.  Obviously, this disincentives working and improving yourself.

My UBI/BIG suggestion:

1.  All other non-healthcare non-disability welfare benefits go away.  On the slowest drawdown would be social security.  The disability system needs serious reform as well, but that's a different topic.
2.  They are replaced with a UBI - Universal Basic Income.  The amount I peg it at is "around" $500/month. 
3.  As part of this, the lowest tax brackets go by-by, as does personal exemptions.  Including EITC and such.  The starting rate is, again, "around" 25%.  It might end up being 26-28%.  This was done to keep the tax level for those earning something around 1/3rd to 1/2 of the median and more the same, while flattening the tax rates as much as possible.  28% results in a slight tax increase($1.5k max for somebody making $91.9k or more), The UBI is to be paid for via the funds from the various terminated welfare programs.  Basically, in order to 'pay' back the UBI at what I consider a reasonable rate, 25% is a little too slow, but increasing the rate to 26% or more results in tax increases for people making over $50k or so.
4.  I acknowledge that implimenting my system would require a vast change in political beliefs.  However, I've been a libertarian for years and am not afraid of being the underdog.

Okay, having given the basic proposal.  I will continue with the intended effects.
1.  As you have pointed out multiple times, those on welfare are afraid of losing their benefits.  As I've pointed out multiple times, but have not seen you either dispute or acknowledge, there exists various "welfare cliffs" where a person is worse off getting a job than staying on benefits.  I say that that fear is actually a secondary effect - people are greedy and are going to seek to maximize their quality of life.  As I asked before, would you take a "promotion" that cost you $10k in income and expected you to work 50% more hours?

I'm learning DevOps stuff right now, and recently read "The Goal".  It quite rightly points out that you have to be careful how you measure your metrics and set your goals, especially any incentives.  Because workers will attempt to maximize their income by fulfilling the requirements for the incentives - even if said requirements actually hurt the company! 

Why the UBI Solves this:  You get the $6k whether you're a homeless bum or Bill Gates.  A base tax rate of 25-28% ensures a gradual taxing back of the UBI, eliminating all welfare cliffs.  As such, complaining about welfare takers who aren't willing to work "because they'd lose their benefits" becomes a farce.  They may still be lazy, and I'll admit that I don't want to pay somebody who can work $6k to sit on their bum either.

2.  Homelessness and Prison aren't cheap either.  Consider the $6k a bribe to keep them from costing us even more money.  At something like $40k per homeless person and $60k per prisoner, if the UBI keeps even 10% from hitting us in the pocketbook that way, it's cheap.  Yes, I'd take the UBI away from prisoners.  Call it my 'prison shouldn't be nicer than life outside' policy.

3.  Kids.  People in poverty still have lots of them.  Many escape to earn more, many don't.  Many become burdens.  By shifting payments away from rewarding single mothers having kids, we should see a lot fewer kids born to single mothers in poverty.  Kids are expensive, a lot more than $6k/year, on average.  You have medical, schooling(attempted), etc... 

The difference I found was that those that never took a dime or .gov money kept working to improve themselves and their jobs.  The one who took welfare didn't do anything to improve themselves or their lot in life.

On the other hand, I've seen quite a few in my family better themselves off ".gov money", eventually getting off of it.  And one that has cost rather more than they're likely to ever pay back, and that's excluding the medical expenses as a child(heart condition requiring surgery, I won't fault that).  Prison tends to do that.

And perhaps I should clarify about "Worked awfully hard to keep their .gov freebies."  to "whined awfully hard about keeping their .gov freebies."   Also the reason they didn't want to work holding sign boards was that they considered it 1) W-O-R-K,  2) they thought it was "degrading", and 3) the were afraid is would cut into their freebies.   See they were already getting a UBI, why work ??

That's kind of the point.  #3 indicates that it's not a UBI(or at least not mine).  That they're unwilling to work(even holding a signboard) indicates that they're getting too much welfare.  #1 - I'm willing to bet that they're getting a whole lot more than $500/month.  Care to challenge me on that?  #2 - the pay for doing the signwork wouldn't result in a sufficiently improved standard of living to justify the work.  Not surprising with #3 rearing it's head in the form of welfare cliffs.  Would you go out and, in today's price climate, hold the signboard for the equivalent of $0.25/hour, once you factor in FICA taxes, reduction in food stamps(30%), state and federal income tax, reduced housing and utilities payments, etc...?

Now, if we implimented my policy and they still don't want to work, then we could discuss alternatives, couldn't we?  At least they'd be cheaper on the pocketbook.

The goal is them realizing that even a minimum wage(with UBI we can start getting rid of that) job improves their lot in life substantially.  While yeah, you will probably have the issue that many will hit satiation before they hit $24k in income, especially the first generation types, even a full time minimum wage job(~$15k/year) will reduce the cost to government by over half.  As any wage increase will increase their income, they're a lot less likely to turn it down.

That's when I turned in my helpers apron and told the volunteer coordinator, "*expletive deleted*ck these parasites."

In cases of people like that, consider the $6k a bribe to stay away from us and to not have kids that they transfer the attitude to.  It's going to take a bit to drain the swamp.

So you just keep going with your pie-in-the-sky plan.  I'm sure it will work if we can only put the right people in charge.

Again, this indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of my plan when you make this comment.  "The right people in charge" indicates active management, if you look at our welfare system like a mutual fund.  I'm proposing an index fund.  If you went to somebody proposing an index fund and started really stressing about having to have "the right people in charge" of it for it to work, can you see how you'd get funny looks? 

The only "right people" I need are managers competent enough to follow the rules.  The IRS, in this case, would be doing most of the work, but that's doable by changing the tax tables.