~*Official Utterly Useless Old Woman, AOC, and UBI Thread*~

[mclumber1]

19 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Anyway, let's talk about issues that are actually popular and have a chance of passing sometime before we die

 

 

 

The GND is so nebulous that it would likely lose a majority of it's support if it was actually brought forward as actual legislation and not just a proclamation. 

[Firewithin]

34 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Anyway, let's talk about issues that are actually popular and have a chance of passing sometime before we die

 

 

 

if there is a god i will see the rich get eaten before the world burns itself up

[legend]

1 hour ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

I'm not advocating nothing--I'm advocating reinforcing what we know already works, a hard enough job as it is, rather than reinvent the wheel for a future that is by no means likely in our, or our children's, lifetimes. 

 

And not taking into account how the system would be dismantled leaving us in a worse off position than before is a fools errand. The hand waving that futurists do at this point of the discussion is irresponsible.

 

How is UBI different, or better, than a robust safety net, especially if you don't eliminate existing safety net protections?

 

What robust safety net? We don't have one right now. UBI would be one way to give one. If you mean minimum wage, that's not a safety net, and certainly not a robust one.

[silentbob]

35 minutes ago, Firewithin said:

 

if there is a god i will see the rich get eaten before the world burns itself up

What about someone with say, in a Suit of Power Armour

 

  

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

23 minutes ago, legend said:

 

What robust safety net? We don't have one right now. UBI would be one way to give one. If you mean minimum wage, that's not a safety net, and certainly not a robust one.

Substantially strengthening the proven, already existing means-tested, targeted transfer mechanisms of the current safety net will negate the need for UBI.

[legend]

2 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

Substantially strengthening the proven, already existing means-tested, targeted transfer mechanisms of the current safety net will negate the need for UBI.

 

What is the current safety net you're referring to? Our welfare program?

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

1 minute ago, legend said:

 

What is the current safety net you're referring to? Our welfare program?

Yes, the full scope of the social welfare system.

[mclumber1]

1 minute ago, legend said:

 

What is the current safety net you're referring to? Our welfare program?

 

$5 generic prescriptions from your local Super Walmart.  Free hot dogs and popcorn at the mattress store that just opened down the road.   Stuff like that. 

[legend]

3 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

Yes, the full scope of the social welfare system.

 

Our current welfare program seems like a pretty piss-poor safety net. In what ways would you strengthen it and what are the key properties of how it being strengthened would be functionally different than a UBI or negative tax? (This is an honest question to be clear)

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

11 minutes ago, legend said:

 

Our current welfare program seems like a pretty piss-poor safety net. In what ways would you strengthen it and what are the key properties of how it being strengthened would be functionally different than a UBI or negative tax?

For staters, substantially increasing the taxation of the upper reaches of both income and accumulated wealth which would lead to an increase of revenue available to expand/strengthen the scope of benefits available from the social welfare state.

 

The key factor is that this is cheaper because of its targeted nature than a blanket benefit under UBI, and you avoid the inherent/inevitable gutting of social welfare that would accompany UBI.

 

We do already have a successful "negative tax" program in the form of the Earned Income Tax Credit which I wouldn't mind seeing expanded.

[legend]

21 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

For staters, substantially increasing the taxation of the upper reaches of bitj income and accumulated wealth which would lead to an increase of revenue available to expand/strengthen the scope of benefits available from the social welfare state.

 

Sure, tax the wealthy, I'm game! How would you use that money though?

Quote

The key factor is that this is cheaper because of its targeted nature than a blanket benefit under UBI,

Implementing UBI doesn't mean you have to keep the tax system identical. You can adjust it so as someone climbs the ladder the income you gave them is eventually taxed back (although I remember reading an article that certain negative tax policies are isomorphic but have a better psychological effect so I'd be okay with adjustments for what works better for peoples psychology).

 

So if you're saying UBI is bad because we have to pay for people who are already doing well, that seems like a criticism for only a pretty naive implementation of it.

 

Quote

and you avoid the inherent/inevitable gutting of social welfare that would accompany UBI.

 

I don't see why this is inevitable, but taxing the rich much more heavily and increasing welfare programs is perfectly possible. It seems like you're selecting casting the opposition as insurmountable.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Why reinvent the wheel, basically. There's nothing ubi can do that can't be done with existing systems and processes

[legend]

2 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Why reinvent the wheel, basically. There's nothing ubi can do that can't be done with existing systems and processes

 

I'm still waiting to know exactly what "strengthening" existing programs means and why it has advantages over an UBI system.

 

This is an honest inquiry: I'd love to know if there are better ways, but just saying "make the current system better" isn't an argument for why it's better. You have to propose something to compare against.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

35 minutes ago, legend said:

Sure, tax the wealthy, I'm game! How would you use that money though?

 

Implementing UBI doesn't mean you have to keep the tax system identical. You can adjust it so as someone climbs the ladder the income you gave them is eventually taxed back (although I remember reading an article that certain negative tax policies are isomorphic but have a better psychological effect so I'd be okay with adjustments for what works better for peoples psychology).

 

So if you're saying it's UBI is bad because we have to pay for people who are already doing well, that seems like a criticism for only a pretty naive implementation of it.

 

I don't see why this is inevitable, but taxing the rich much more heavily and increasing welfare programs is perfectly possible. It seems like you're selecting casting the opposition as insurmountable.

(1) For starters, the "Medicare for All" thing could be at least partially funded with the increased revenues, something that probably won't be possible under UBI because the UBI distributions would suck up funding.  Ensuring access to healthcare is a vastly more important goal than providing an "income floor" of a paltry $12,000/year.

 

(2) Yes, the tax system would require substantial adjustments to accomodate UBI.  I just have zero faith in our ability to calibrate it accordingly so that the "right" people are taxed as they climb the income ladder without totally negating the "positive" effects that UBI was intended to accomplish to begin with.

 

(3)  I am not even remotely suggesting that my suggestions are "perfectly possible".  I am suggesting that they are more plausible and/or politically palatable because they are targeted  rather than "giving away free money" (which is what UBI essentially is).

[legend]

7 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

(1) For starters, the "Medicare for All" thing could be at least partially funded with the increased revenues, something that probably won't be possible under UBI because the UBI distributions would suck up funding.

 

(2) Yes, the tax system would require substantial adjustments to accomodate UBI.  I just have zero faith in our ability to calibrate it accordingly so that the "right" people are taxed as they climb the income ladder without totally negating the "positive" effects that UBI was intended to accomplish to begin with.

 

(3)  I am not even remotely suggesting that my suggestions are "perfectly possible".  I am suggesting that they are more plausible and/or politically palatable because they are targeted than "giving away free money" (which is what UBI essentially is).

 

It seems like your objection to UBI then is only if the policy has a tax system that is garbage. Sure, I agree. Shit implementations can exist for basically anything. For example, see how the GOP has bastardized ACA to the point that it no longer makes sense.

 

I wouldn't support a shit implementation, but if we reject policy ideas outright because the worst implementations suck then we can't discuss any policies because that's true for literally everything.

 

 

Out of curiosity do you put negative tax in the same boat? The net effect in numbers is the same, but might be simpler to conceptualize.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

My objection to UBI is that I simply cannot conceive of any way in this "real world" that its implementation does not make the most vulnerable members of society worse off than they would be under a significantly expanded, means-tested, targeted transfer social welfare system to say nothing of its costs vis-a-vis a civilized version of the current system.

 

I really have not paid that much attention to negative taxes (as opposed to the EITC) though I can't imagine that my sentiments would be substantially different.

[mclumber1]

39 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Why reinvent the wheel, basically. There's nothing ubi can do that can't be done with existing systems and processes

 

You sound like a conservative.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

10 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

You sound like a conservative.

 

Not wanting a redundant social program when we can use the money that would be put into this new shiny to increase benefits and eligibility for food stamps, wic, welfare, affordable housing and other things that we know work. I actually want these things, not just throwing whataboutism every which way.

[Anathema-]

why don't we just make housing/rent more affordable

[legend]

13 hours ago, SFLUFAN said:

My objection to UBI is that I simply cannot conceive of any way in this "real world" that its implementation does not make the most vulnerable members of society worse off than they would be under a significantly expanded, means-tested, targeted transfer social welfare system to say nothing of its costs vis-a-vis a civilized version of the current system.

 

I really have not paid that much attention to negative taxes (as opposed to the EITC) though I can't imagine that my sentiments would be substantially different.

 

Because a significantly expanded welfare program couldn't also just as easily be cut on the whims of conservatives?

 

I want to be clear that UBI doesn't mean you get rid of every other social program. Healthcare can also co-exist. Having additional social programs for housing also makes sense.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

1 hour ago, legend said:

 

Because a significantly expanded welfare program couldn't also just as easily be cut on the whims of conservatives?

 

I want to be clear that UBI doesn't mean you get rid of every other social program. Healthcare can also co-exist. Having additional social programs for housing also makes sense.

Of course an expanded social welfare programs will always be a target for the knives of conservative budget cutters - I have never suggested otherwise!

 

Again, in this world that we inhabit, UBI and existing/expanded social programs are mutually exclusive.  They simply cannot co-exist due to political and economic realities.  As a result, it is preferable to advocate for the one that has a higher probability of achieving what it sets out to do -- however imperfectly -- despite the best efforts of the conservative budget hawks to destroy it.

[legend]

51 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

Of course an expanded social welfare programs will always be a target for the knives of conservative budget cutters - I have never suggested otherwise!

 

Again, in this world that we inhabit, UBI and existing/expanded social programs are mutually exclusive.  They simply cannot co-exist due to political and economic realities.  As a result, it is preferable to advocate for the one that has a higher probability of achieving what it sets out to do -- however imperfectly -- despite the best efforts of the conservative budget hawks to destroy it.

 

I reject the notion that they have to be mutually exclusive. And we'll never get anything done if say "yeah but what if we did it badly." We can refuse to discuss any  proposal if you want to play that game, including "expanded welfare will never happen because of economic and political realities." If you're going to reject a proposal for reasons that have to do with a *different* proposal, it doesn't get more straw man than that.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

6 minutes ago, legend said:

 

I reject the notion that they have to be mutually exclusive. And we'll never get anything done if say "yeah but what if we did it badly." We can refuse to discuss any  proposal if you want to play that game, including "expanded welfare will never happen because of economic and political realities." If you're going to reject a proposal for reasons that have to do with a *different* proposal, it doesn't get more straw man than that.

As someone who has zero issues with the use of the so-called "strawman fallacy", that's totally fine with me! 

[legend]

Just now, SFLUFAN said:

As someone who has zero issues with the use of the so-called "strawman fallacy", that's totally fine with me! 

 

You're okay with telling some one something is wrong because of something that has nothing to do with what they said?

 

Alright chief, I guess I can ignore you for irrelevant babbling then!

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

3 minutes ago, legend said:

 

You're okay with telling some one something is wrong because of something that has nothing to do with what they said?

 

Alright chief, I guess I can ignore you for irrelevant babbling then!

I am REALLY at pains to see where anything I have said comes close to employing this strawman argument.

[legend]

1 minute ago, SFLUFAN said:

I am REALLY at pains to see where anything I have said comes close to employing this strawman argument.

 

I'm not asking about why a UBI policy that guts other social programs is bad. We agree on that! I'm asking why a UBI program that sits alongside other social programs is bad. So telling me it's bad because it will gut other social programs fails to advance the conversation. And telling me "it won't get passed" is unproductive and still doesn't answer the question of whether a policy including it is itself bad.

 

I feel like it shouldn't be this hard: there are probably lots of reasons to be skeptical of various UBI plans, but you're not offering those reasons.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Of course a UBI that sits alongside other social programs that doesn't inherently diminish those programs by its mere existence won't be "bad".  Far from it - that would be the utopian ideal!

 

It's simply something that much like a unicorn is (more than likely) a mythical beast in this world -- given the political and economic realities -- and is therefore something that I see very little productive gain in considering relative to strengthening the current social welfare system.

[Jwheel86]

As someone who's been through the social safety net (Medicaid and SSI), I think the advantage that UBI has is that it wouldn't be a bureaucratic mess as is the current system. That complexity results in a system where those who are good at gaming the system win, and those who aren't get left out. I don't believe it is possible to create a targeted program that doesn't result in that outcome. Worse, that outcome puts people against each other creating perceptions of fraud (which is mostly unfounded based on the technical scope of the programs, but the perception remains). 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Let me go a bit further to illustrate my "hardline" opposition.

 

Let's assume a UBI that guarantees an income floor of $1,000/month or $12,000 per annum.  This rate would effectively swallow the entire US Federal budget (both discretionary and mandatory) which is currently $4.2 trillion.  This means that to preserve social programs in a manner that they are not negatively impacted by UBI's existence, we'd essentially have to start at zero.

 

Because we will need to raise more revenue, this means more taxes.  Of course, we're gonna "soak the rich" (which should be done anyway!), but that's not going to be enough.  A national VAT will have to be instituted to bring in revenue.  However, a VAT is an inherently regressive tax which means that the benefits of the UBI for those it is most intended to assist are either significantly reduced or even wiped out by the VAT.

 

In essence, what have I really accomplished?

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

3 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said:

As someone who's been through the social safety net (Medicaid and SSI), I think the advantage that UBI has is that it wouldn't be a bureaucratic mess as is the current system. That complexity results in a system where those who are good at gaming the system win, and those who aren't get left out. I don't believe it is possible to create a targeted program that doesn't result in that outcome. Worse, that outcome puts people against each other creating perceptions of fraud (which is mostly unfounded based on the technical scope of the programs, but the perception remains). 

You get zero argument from me there.

[Guest]

16 hours ago, SFLUFAN said:

Substantially strengthening the proven, already existing means-tested, targeted transfer mechanisms of the current safety net will negate the need for UBI.

No it won’t. You guys are comically underestimating the effects of perpetual joblessness for a significant chunk of the population. A bunch of different systems, with different requirements, run by different agencies, funded by different government structures, already leads to massive under utilization by those who do qualify for the programs.

 

Programs that only care for the basic needs of the people won’t be enough.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

2 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

No it won’t. You guys are comically underestimating the effects of perpetual joblessness for a significant chunk of the population. A bunch of different systems, with different requirements, run by different agencies, funded by different government structures, already leads to massive under utilization by those who do qualify for the programs.

 

Programs that only care for the basic needs of the people won’t be enough.

That's an argument for wholesale reform, not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[Guest]

You want to strengthen programs that take care of basic needs. Guaranteed incomes aren’t to take care of basic needs. You are fundamentally misunderstanding the concept.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

22 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

You want to strengthen programs that take care of basic needs. Guaranteed incomes aren’t to take care of basic needs. You are fundamentally misunderstanding the concept.

I am under no illusions that guaranteed income is not intended to meet basic needs because it sure as heck isn't enough money to do that.  I am also under no illusions that its implementation in the US would be intended to meet those basic needs by scrapping those programs:  "Here's your $12,000/year - vaya con Dios!"

 

Given that, I choose to overhaul/strengthen those programs intended to meet those basic needs before we can even begin to remotely entertain a guaranteed income discussion.

[Jason]

50 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

Let's assume a UBI that guarantees an income floor of $1,000/month or $12,000 per annum.  This rate would effectively swallow the entire US Federal budget (both discretionary and mandatory) which is currently $4.2 trillion.  This means that to preserve social programs in a manner that they are not negatively impacted by UBI's existence, we'd essentially have to start at zero.

 

I'm generally in favor of less administrative overhead for this stuff but you could greatly reduce the cost of this program by making it so that you get $(1,000 - current monthly income) per month. This way there's no cliff as it's a dollar-for-dollar dropoff as your income increases up to $1,000 a month, but you're greatly reducing the UBI-elegible population.

 

One of the problems is that if you went this route then you'd likely get people insisting on including a clause that if your income the year winds up going up beyond what the monthly payments were initially based on (say because you got a job mid-year) that you have to pay the money back, which would be a gigantic mess.