Split UBI - Split From Breakdown In Civil Order

[Loren Pechtel]

And you have a fantasy that your change will increase the economy enough to pay for it.

You have insufficient basis to determine that it's a fantasy, unless like Emily, you are conflating what is being proposed with handing out 330 million $15k checks.

That's what UBI would mean!

What are you defining it as?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why not move on and tell us about your vision for remedying the situation, instead of martialling your entire intellectual force to the defense of your definition of the UBI acronym?

Huh? It's not our job to solve the fact that your "solution" doesn't work.

 

[laughing dog]

Why not move on and tell us about your vision for remedying the situation, instead of martialling your entire intellectual force to the defense of your definition of the UBI acronym?

Huh? It's not our job to solve the fact that your "solution" doesn't work.

You clearly are confused about what constitutes a “fact”. Assuming something cannot work does not make it a fact it won’t work.

 

[Swammerdami]

. I DO support providing meaningful assistance to those in need. So pretty much the total opposite of the strawman position you've assigned to me.

Why then, does it consistently sound like you automatically associate any suggestion of such help with the UBI=15k*n strawman model?

That would be because you're using a totally unique and personally bespoke interpretation of UBI that makes it not-universal and not-basic. And because you've taken such a special pleading view of UBI, you have failed to grasp my arguments.

I think you have restricted your thinking to the unachievable. I just don’t know why. Is it intentional?
We COULD be talking about ways to ensure that a basic income of 15k$ is universally guaranteed to every American, instead of vexing about the cost of providing 15k to every warm body that takes home nine, eight, seven, six, or high five figures.
But you’re stuck there, and don’t want to move.

I thought we've AGREED that we can always get the conceptual equivalent of means-testing by giving the UBI to EVERYONE but using a tax table that recovers the UBI cash given to the well-off. Taxing policies can be designed to fine-tune this and to achieve other objectives (carbon tax is the well-known example). This not only avoids the red-tape of means testing, but avoids benefits "cliffs."

But of course, MY proposal -- free goods and services taking the place of most of the UBI cash -- is hugely superior on many grounds.

So far I've gotten ZERO Infidels to support my plan. Given that, I guess I won't bother mentioning the plan to my Congressperson.

 

[bigfield]

But of course, MY proposal -- free goods and services taking the place of most of the UBI cash -- is hugely superior on many grounds.

Superior to UBI? No.

A vital complement to UBI? Yes.

You need to give people free shit to ease their cost of living, and you also need to ensure they are receiving a basic income. If you do one and not the other then you're still going to have a ton of people in poverty.

So far I've gotten ZERO Infidels to support my plan. Given that, I guess I won't bother mentioning the plan to my Congressperson.

Oh noes, what have we done.

 

[Swammerdami]

But of course, MY proposal -- free goods and services taking the place of most (not all) of the UBI cash -- is hugely superior on many grounds.

Superior to UBI? No.

A vital complement to UBI? Yes.

You need to give people free shit to ease their cost of living, and you also need to ensure they are receiving a basic income. If you do one and not the other then you're still going to have a ton of people in poverty.

What's wrong with "poverty"? My plan provides FOOD, HOUSING, CHILD-CARE and MEDICAL care. If I throw in free Wifi will you sign on?

 

[bigfield]

But of course, MY proposal -- free goods and services taking the place of most (not all) of the UBI cash -- is hugely superior on many grounds.

Superior to UBI? No.

A vital complement to UBI? Yes.

You need to give people free shit to ease their cost of living, and you also need to ensure they are receiving a basic income. If you do one and not the other then you're still going to have a ton of people in poverty.

What's wrong with "poverty"? My plan provides FOOD, HOUSING, CHILD-CARE and MEDICAL care. If I throw in free Wifi will you sign on?

Plus free internet, plus free electricity, free water, free whitegoods, free transport, free clothes, free furniture, free education...

The measures you've suggested are not an alternative to UBI. They complement UBI because they ease the cost of living, but people will still need money for all the shit that you aren't giving to them for nothing.

 

[Swammerdami]

You're making life VERY comfortable for Americans. What about the comforts of Africans? South Asians? Or do we need to exploit foreigners just to finance UBI?

At some point Emily's concern becomes reality: Taking larger and larger pieces from an ever-diminishing pie... I vote that we start with smaller steps and see how things work out.

 

[Elixir]

What's wrong with "poverty"? My plan provides FOOD, HOUSING, CHILD-CARE and MEDICAL care.

Not to be too terribly snarky, but a person who has food, shelter, medical and child care is certainly not "poor" by any global standards.

 

[Elixir]

Why not move on and tell us about your vision for remedying the situation, instead of martialling your entire intellectual force to the defense of your definition of the UBI acronym?

Huh? It's not our job to solve the fact that your "solution" doesn't work.

You clearly are confused about what constitutes a “fact”. Assuming something cannot work does not make it a fact it won’t work.

I think he got addled by my use of "UBI" to mean assuring that at minimum, a basic income is universally guaranteed.
His definition - handing out 330 million checks - is just plain stupid, and has been put forth as "why it doesn't work".

 

[Swammerdami]

What's wrong with "poverty"? My plan provides FOOD, HOUSING, CHILD-CARE and MEDICAL care.

Not to be too terribly snarky, but a person who has food, shelter, medical and child care is certainly not "poor" by any global standards.

I agree. This conversation is weird. I feel like I'm proposing the biggest give-away in all of history, but some here will lump me with the slave-driving fascists unless I also promise every kid a pony, and every family a shiny new sports-car.

 

[Emily Lake]

But of course, MY proposal -- free goods and services taking the place of most of the UBI cash -- is hugely superior on many grounds.

So far I've gotten ZERO Infidels to support my plan. Given that, I guess I won't bother mentioning the plan to my Congressperson.

Give me a summary again please?

On the whole, my approach is to provide more goods and services rather than cash, as well as addressing taxes that favor already-wealthy corporations while sticking it to individuals. This infidel is probably more likely to support you than to oppose you.

 

[Emily Lake]

Why not move on and tell us about your vision for remedying the situation, instead of martialling your entire intellectual force to the defense of your definition of the UBI acronym?

Huh? It's not our job to solve the fact that your "solution" doesn't work.

You clearly are confused about what constitutes a “fact”. Assuming something cannot work does not make it a fact it won’t work.

I think he got addled by my use of "UBI" to mean assuring that at minimum, a basic income is universally guaranteed.
His definition - handing out 330 million checks - is just plain stupid, and has been put forth as "why it doesn't work".

It really is a bit confusing when UBI is defined as literally handing out the same amount of actual cash to every single person, and you say you support UBI but that handing out the same amount of actual cash to every single person is stupid.

 

[Emily Lake]

What's wrong with "poverty"? My plan provides FOOD, HOUSING, CHILD-CARE and MEDICAL care.

Not to be too terribly snarky, but a person who has food, shelter, medical and child care is certainly not "poor" by any global standards.

I agree. This conversation is weird. I feel like I'm proposing the biggest give-away in all of history, but some here will lump me with the slave-driving fascists unless I also promise every kid a pony, and every family a shiny new sports-car.

It really is a very weird discussion.

 

[Swammerdami]

But of course, MY proposal -- free goods and services taking the place of most of the UBI cash -- is hugely superior on many grounds.

So far I've gotten ZERO Infidels to support my plan. Given that, I guess I won't bother mentioning the plan to my Congressperson.

Give me a summary again please?

On the whole, my approach is to provide more goods and services rather than cash, as well as addressing taxes that favor already-wealthy corporations while sticking it to individuals. This infidel is probably more likely to support you than to oppose you.

Instead of a cash-only UBI, I want some NEEDS to be covered by the government, without cash payments to citizens. Health-care is a big item that we almost all agree on, and so is education. Child-care is another biggy. (Instead of paying for the childcare, a parent might be required to work one day a week at the facility, though I do NOT want to flesh out plan details.) There would also be (and to some extent already are) subsidies (or free sources) for food and housing. (Public transport and free Wifi are also examples of services that government might afford for the general benefit of society.)

No means testing would be needed. Affluent parents would arrange their own child-care, use private schools, and prefer restaurants or cuisine over subsidized food, so the limited government spending would be implicitly directed at the needy.

There would be a "Marxist, to each according to his needs" aspect. Some parents need childcare, some don't. In a cash UBI those who don't need a service like childcare or prescription medicine could spend the cash instead on liquor, recreational drugs, whatever. In my proposal they just wouldn't get the benefit.

And I agree with you that income tax tables, and tax policies more generally, should be tuned. And I've proposed that the first $9000 of annual earnings be exempt from Social Security tax (both employee and employer portions): This would encourage hiring. A stiff carbon tax would be more than enough to make up the revenue short-fall.

 

[Elixir]

Why not move on and tell us about your vision for remedying the situation, instead of martialling your entire intellectual force to the defense of your definition of the UBI acronym?

Huh? It's not our job to solve the fact that your "solution" doesn't work.

You clearly are confused about what constitutes a “fact”. Assuming something cannot work does not make it a fact it won’t work.

I think he got addled by my use of "UBI" to mean assuring that at minimum, a basic income is universally guaranteed.
His definition - handing out 330 million checks - is just plain stupid, and has been put forth as "why it doesn't work".

It really is a bit confusing when UBI is defined as literally handing out the same amount of actual cash to every single person, and you say you support UBI but that handing out the same amount of actual cash to every single person is stupid.

I ASKED you to provide a catchy new acronym for the very sensible ideas for which I advocate, and you never coughed it up!
I will henceforth refrain from treading on the toes of UBI opponents by construing it to refer to a relatively minor but highly effective redistribution of “excess” wealth, where in fact it is ONLY to refer to the abysmally stupid idea of handing out 335 million 15k checks.

Of course this means that when RW oligarchs scream about communism and UBI, that refers to ANY effort to get the rich and upper middle class to pay their fair share, they are perfectly justified. Because, as we all agree, UBI IS STUPID. As long as they stick to their preferred acronym.

 

[Emily Lake]

But of course, MY proposal -- free goods and services taking the place of most of the UBI cash -- is hugely superior on many grounds.

So far I've gotten ZERO Infidels to support my plan. Given that, I guess I won't bother mentioning the plan to my Congressperson.

Give me a summary again please?

On the whole, my approach is to provide more goods and services rather than cash, as well as addressing taxes that favor already-wealthy corporations while sticking it to individuals. This infidel is probably more likely to support you than to oppose you.

Instead of a cash-only UBI, I want some NEEDS to be covered by the government, without cash payments to citizens. Health-care is a big item that we almost all agree on, and so is education. Child-care is another biggy. (Instead of paying for the childcare, a parent might be required to work one day a week at the facility, though I do NOT want to flesh out plan details.) There would also be (and to some extent already are) subsidies (or free sources) for food and housing. (Public transport and free Wifi are also examples of services that government might afford for the general benefit of society.)

No means testing would be needed. Affluent parents would arrange their own child-care, use private schools, and prefer restaurants or cuisine over subsidized food, so the limited government spending would be implicitly directed at the needy.

There would be a "Marxist, to each according to his needs" aspect. Some parents need childcare, some don't. In a cash UBI those who don't need a service like childcare or prescription medicine could spend the cash instead on liquor, recreational drugs, whatever. In my proposal they just wouldn't get the benefit.

And I agree with you that income tax tables, and tax policies more generally, should be tuned. And I've proposed that the first $9000 of annual earnings be exempt from Social Security tax (both employee and employer portions): This would encourage hiring. A stiff carbon tax would be more than enough to make up the revenue short-fall.

I'm with you on the majority of that - health care (we can quibble about implementation and what that actually means, but that's an entire thread on it's own), education (including post-secondary training of several types), and child care. I wouldn't object to internet and cell phone coverage being provided as public goods - it's pretty much impossible to function without them, much like water and electricity.

If we're subsidizing other goods, I disagree that we should eliminate means testing. I would certainly agree that means testing should be less convoluted... but the unfortunate fact is that humans are opportunistic by nature, and that if there's a way for us to exploit something, there's going to be a lot of people who will.

 

[Emily Lake]

Why not move on and tell us about your vision for remedying the situation, instead of martialling your entire intellectual force to the defense of your definition of the UBI acronym?

Huh? It's not our job to solve the fact that your "solution" doesn't work.

You clearly are confused about what constitutes a “fact”. Assuming something cannot work does not make it a fact it won’t work.

I think he got addled by my use of "UBI" to mean assuring that at minimum, a basic income is universally guaranteed.
His definition - handing out 330 million checks - is just plain stupid, and has been put forth as "why it doesn't work".

It really is a bit confusing when UBI is defined as literally handing out the same amount of actual cash to every single person, and you say you support UBI but that handing out the same amount of actual cash to every single person is stupid.

I ASKED you to provide a catchy new acronym for the very sensible ideas for which I advocate, and you never coughed it up!
I will henceforth refrain from treading on the toes of UBI opponents by construing it to refer to a relatively minor but highly effective redistribution of “excess” wealth, where in fact it is ONLY to refer to the abysmally stupid idea of handing out 335 million 15k checks.
Of course this means that when RW oligarchs scream about communism and UBI, that refers to ANY effort to get the rich and upper middle class to pay their fair share, they are perfectly justified. As long as they stick to their preferred acronym.

I accepted your recommendation of calling it XYZ

Seriously, acronyms are definitely not my bailiwick. But I'll help you outsource the task to someone with that skill set if you'd like.

 

[Elixir]

if there's a way for us to exploit something, there's going to be a lot of people who will.

… which is why we have the thousands of times variance between high and minimum wage incomes in the first place, raising the need to bail out the impoverished.

 

[Emily Lake]

if there's a way for us to exploit something, there's going to be a lot of people who will.

… which is why we have the thousands of times variance between high and minimum wage incomes in the first place, raising the need to bail out the impoverished.

No argument about the problem. Might have some argument about the methods.

Mostly, I want methods that actually mitigate and manage the tendency to exploit, not just treat the symptoms of such exploitation. For me, that means we need to change the regulations and the incentives in place that allowed the exploitative practices to arrive in the first place. That doesn't mean we don't also have to address the outcomes we're observing, it just means that we can't do that alone. We can't only treat the symptoms, we have to tackle the cause or it won't cure the disease.