Split UBI - Split From Breakdown In Civil Order

[Alcoholic Actuary]

In the US I'm pretty sure you'd still have to work with UBI - I mean what if you got cancer?

aa

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don’t know! In my opinion, UPI would be great. Just like Reparations - I’m on board. But I simply prioritize so many other issues more than UPI (and reparations). For example, I’d favor increased spending for our schools, infrastructure, higher ed, environmental problems, and etc.

Perhaps we can gather in support of my version of UBI. Instead of just cash, I propose that income transfers from the comfortable to the less-so be in targeted goods and services:

• Free healthcare for all. Freeing employers from a healthcare obligation increases their demand for workers, so is win-win.
• Subsidized child-care, job training, higher education, public transit, food, housing, etc.
• Improved infrastructure, incl. parks and recreation.
• Some of these come with a sort of automatic "means-testing". The rich will want their own schools, their own transit, etc. This reduces the demand for, and hence the cost of these subsidies.

It sounds like you and I are largely in agreement. However you managed to misconstrue almost every point I made!

I agree that your approach would be the best way to do a UBI, I don't agree that we are in a position where it should be done.

I like the idea of making it in the form of benefits. No means testing, though--means testing makes sense if you want to provide something only to the poor.

Yes, and my proposal did NOT involve means testing. It seems you misconstrued my "automatic 'means testing'". The point is that subsidized child care, while available free to the rich, is of no interest to parents who can afford their own babysitters. And so on, down the list of all the free or subsidized services I mentioned.

However, providing it to all but the rich generally ends up with a lot of effort spent on whether they qualify which produces no value.

NO. I am AVOIDING means testing. You misunderstood.

Agreed, I misunderstood.

I just have a big problem with what the quality level will be. Medicare is already substantially inferior to good health plans and the disparity grows wider over time.

You get what you pay for. Medicare was NOT designed by legislators who wanted a good health program. It was designed by Joe Lieberman, or whoever the 60th-best Senator was needed to stop a filibuster.

The basic problem is that it's not adequately funded. The government uses it's heavy hand to try to force it's acceptance on providers but they are increasingly fighting back--not taking Medicare or taking only a limited number of Medicare patients. We even have a local hospital that fought back to an extreme--they decided the better business model was to tell the government where it could put it. The get around the government's big stick by simply not billing any service provided to a patient on Medicare that is brought to their ER.

VA Medicine has a bad reputation propagated by right-wing media (whose goal coincides with Ronald Reagan's dictum to make Americans hate government). Actual users of VA Medical brag about how good it is.

The problem with all such evaluations is that if a healthcare system handles the routine stuff well and handles the emergency stuff well it will have wide support even if it fails badly on the big non-emergency stuff. The percentage of it's users that are currently being hurt is low and people tend to have short memories.

But this is all just pipe-dream anyway. As long as QOPAnon retains power -- even 41 Senators plus Joe Manchin -- many efforts would be doomed to failure.

Some of the UBI benefits would be pure cash, but most, while still "universal" in principle, would be targeted as shown.
Libertarians will screech at me to keep gummint's hands off their new-found money: If a couple would prefer to spend this taxpayer largesse on crack cocaine rather than food for their infant, so be it. And the childless who get no benefit from better schools will toss out Marx's "To each according to his needs" and call me a "woke-thinking Jew-loving commie rat inspired by the Khmer Pol Pot." To that I just answer "Calm down, you straw figment lurching and leering inside Swammi's senescent cerebrum!"

We already see far too much of money going to the parent's wants before the child's needs.

So we agree on that!

Yup. It needs to be in unconvertable forms.

- - - - - - - - - - -

Ms. Lake asks if we can afford UBI. There are various ways to address that question arithmetically, but one of the most straightforward is to start with inequality measures like Gini. The following are WorldBank estimates of Gini taken from Wikipedia. I show the U.S., the four highest-Gini countries in Europe, and some other large countries. (I also include Haiti and Laos, as examples of countries with Ginis near that of the U.S.)

I don't see how this is even relevant.

VERY relevant. The whole idea of income transfers -- taxing (primarily from the high-income people) to provide universal benefit (primarily benefiting low-income people) depends on -- wait for it! -- the high-income people having much higher income than the low-income people! I don't know if I can explain the arithmetic plainer than that.

When asking whether a society can "afford" an income-redistribution program, the quantitative disparity between high- and low-income people is KEY.

No. There are two questions--what percentage could be redistributed and what total amount could be redistributed. Your approach addresses the first part adequately but doesn't touch the second. And I'm saying that with the current economy we can't redistribute enough to actually provide a UBI.

The U.S. has higher disparity than Europe. (In part this is because European countries already have programs similar to what I propose: programs which have reduced Gini.)

And it is VERY relevant to see countries like Denmark and Holland with low disparity: These are not socialist shit-hole countries. (I will admit that the richest 1% in Denmark may not be bathing their infants in caviar as some of America's super-rich do, if that's your point.)

I'm not talking the richest 1%, I'm talking the middle class.

And note that the standard of living in much of Europe is well below US averages. There's a price to be paid for their generous benefit systems.

UBI is intended to improve the standard of living of the poor. I've no idea what statistic you're referencing but it ain't the standard of living of the poor.

The point is their redistribution systems are drawing down the standard of living for everyone but the poor. The median household income in Denmark is half that of the US.

Google is increasingly reluctant to provide me with simple stats I ask for (though happy to point me to paywalls). But I do find crude estimates of wealth distribution. (I'd use income rather than wealth for this comparison, but make do with what Google presents.)

I do NOT propose the following redistribution. Just use it as arithmetic demonstration that the wealth or income gap CAN be reduced without tragic results.

Google shows me that the top 10% of U.S.'s 130 million households have, on average, almost $4 million in wealth. On a "share of the pie" basis this is about double of 50 years ago, I think. We could take away half of that $4 million and the rich would still be as well off, relatively, as during the Boom of the 1960's. If we taxed away a teeny-tiny 2% of that Top-10% wealth and gave it to the lowest 6% (i.e. households in "poverty"), that works out to $133,000 per impoverished household. (I am NOT suggesting we give out that cash along with free transport to the street-corners where crack is sold. I'm just demonstrating that there is huge room for redistribution measures.)

1) By looking at wealth rather than income you neglect the fact that you're consuming wealth.

Did I need a larger font here?:

(I'd use income rather than wealth for this comparison, but make do with what Google presents.)

I've looked up a lot of this before, downloaded tables and what-not. I've so many bookmarks I need bookmarks to them. But I still use Google mainly, and searches don't work well for me now, what with paywalls etc.

If YOU posted a link to tables of U.S. income distribution, then Sorry, I missed them.

Be careful with overly-simplistic tables, however. So much of America's income goes to the top 0.01% (or even top 0.001%) that it's easy to be misled about the extent of inequality.

I know you wanted income rather than wealth, but you were using the numbers for total wealth so I did, also.

Taking that "2%" basically halves the income of retirees even if you're taking it from pre-tax money. Take it from post-tax money and it's far worse.

In the "thought experiment" the 2% confiscation was a one-time event. I was certainly NOT proposing a $133,000 annual payment to every poor family.

And again, it was just a back-of-the-envelope example to get a feel for the numbers involved. Emily Lake's claim that such a transfer is unfeasible arithmetically is simply wrong.

Such things are never one time events.

2) There's a lot of "money" that can't actually be spent. The economy doesn't produce the goods/services to spend it on, converting it to consumer spending is going to cause an inflation spike.

Take your ill-founded hypothesis to the Inflation thread!

3) You probably didn't do much for those households in poverty anyway--most people in poverty are there because of economic mismanagement and the money won't fix that.

Hunh? My plan offered subsidized housing and food, etc. and specifically NOT "money."

You can give them a better house and food but they'll still be in poverty because they'll spend on wants before needs.

 

[bilby]

You can give them a better house and food but they'll still be in poverty because they'll spend on wants before needs.

This appears to be a completely unfounded assumption.

And it makes the unwarranted implication that YOU know better than THEM how THEY should spend THEIR money; Which is quite an impressive feat on your part, given that you don't know ANYTHING about them; Not even who THEY are.

Are you a god?

 

[laughing dog]

You can give them a better house and food but they'll still be in poverty because they'll spend on wants before needs.

This appears to be a completely unfounded assumption.

And it makes the unwarranted implication that YOU know better than THEM how THEY should spend THEIR money; Which is quite an impressive feat on your part, given that you don't know ANYTHING about them; Not even who THEY are.

Are you a god?

According to a surprisingly large snd historically persistent portion of the population, poverty is the result of choices on the part of the poor. It is really a combination of condescension and arrogance that had been around for many centuries .

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You can give them a better house and food but they'll still be in poverty because they'll spend on wants before needs.

This appears to be a completely unfounded assumption.

And it makes the unwarranted implication that YOU know better than THEM how THEY should spend THEIR money; Which is quite an impressive feat on your part, given that you don't know ANYTHING about them; Not even who THEY are.

Are you a god?

Most people in poverty are there because they put wants above needs. And the result of them getting a windfall shows what happens.

 

[bilby]

You can give them a better house and food but they'll still be in poverty because they'll spend on wants before needs.

This appears to be a completely unfounded assumption.

And it makes the unwarranted implication that YOU know better than THEM how THEY should spend THEIR money; Which is quite an impressive feat on your part, given that you don't know ANYTHING about them; Not even who THEY are.

Are you a god?

Most people in poverty are there because they put wants above needs. And the result of them getting a windfall shows what happens.

Reiterating an unfounded assumption doesn't improve it.

And the result of "them" getting a windfall shows that they prefer community over selfishness; It shows three eighths of fuck all about them putting "wants" over "needs", particularly as "remain hugely wealthy" isn't a "need" for non psychopaths.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You can give them a better house and food but they'll still be in poverty because they'll spend on wants before needs.

This appears to be a completely unfounded assumption.

And it makes the unwarranted implication that YOU know better than THEM how THEY should spend THEIR money; Which is quite an impressive feat on your part, given that you don't know ANYTHING about them; Not even who THEY are.

Are you a god?

According to a surprisingly large snd historically persistent portion of the population, poverty is the result of choices on the part of the poor. It is really a combination of condescension and arrogance that had been around for many centuries .

The thing is most people can climb out of being poor--this leaves the ones who are trapped because of their behavior (and some who are trapped by disability or the like.) I see a lot of immigrants come here with far greater barriers but with the attitudes needed to succeed. They start poor, they don't stay poor.

 

[bilby]

The thing is most people can climb out of being poor

Your repeated statements of your beliefs are entertaining, but not something anyone should take seriously without evidence.

 

[Swammerdami]

The thing is most people can climb out of being poor

Your repeated statements of your beliefs are entertaining, but not something anyone should take seriously without evidence.

As just a single counter-example to Mr. Pechtel's claim, many of the past and present homeless are veterans of one of USA's stupid wars and are enfeebled by severe PTSD. Many others in dire straits are also victims of American society's dysfunction.

 

[Elixir]

It makes me frustrated and angry to see the claim that “most people can climb out of being poor” being made by people who have never had to do so.
IME, people making such claims are projecting that poor people are playing on the same field that they are.
THEY’RE NOT.

 

[Harry Bosch]

It makes me frustrated and angry to see the claim that “most people can climb out of being poor” being made by people who have never had to do so.
IME, people making such claims are projecting that poor people are playing on the same field that they are.
THEY’RE NOT.

I’m not going to get into this debate in either side as I haven’t researched it. But I am amazed to say that I personally know a couple families who live pay check to paycheck, are broke, but have yearly income greater than $200k per year.

 

[Elixir]

I’m not going to get into this debate in either side as I haven’t researched it.

Nor have I. But I have lived it, and have confronted numerous obstacles that I was able to overcome only by “virtue” (not!) of the privilege into which I was born.

But I am amazed to say that I personally know a couple families who live pay check to paycheck, are broke, but have yearly income greater than $200k per year.

Those are not “poor people”. If they are trapped at all, it is by bounds they have imposed upon themselves.

 

[ZiprHead]

You can give them a better house and food but they'll still be in poverty because they'll spend on wants before needs.

This appears to be a completely unfounded assumption.

And it makes the unwarranted implication that YOU know better than THEM how THEY should spend THEIR money; Which is quite an impressive feat on your part, given that you don't know ANYTHING about them; Not even who THEY are.

Are you a god?

Most people in poverty are there because they put wants above needs. And the result of them getting a windfall shows what happens.

Reiterating an unfounded assumption doesn't improve it.

And the result of "them" getting a windfall shows that they prefer community over selfishness; It shows three eighths of fuck all about them putting "wants" over "needs", particularly as "remain hugely wealthy" isn't a "need" for non psychopaths.

It's the old "welfare Cadillac" bullshit all over again.

 

[Elixir]

You can give them a better house and food but they'll still be in poverty because they'll spend on wants before needs.

This appears to be a completely unfounded assumption.

And it makes the unwarranted implication that YOU know better than THEM how THEY should spend THEIR money; Which is quite an impressive feat on your part, given that you don't know ANYTHING about them; Not even who THEY are.

Are you a god?

Most people in poverty are there because they put wants above needs. And the result of them getting a windfall shows what happens.

Yeah, who would have EVER thought that people who have been financially oppressed for their entire lives, would make unwise choices with a windfall?

Why do people who have always had money, know more about how to handle money than people who have never had any money? Fucking mysterious, ain’t it @Loren Pechtel ?

 

[thebeave]

You can give them a better house and food but they'll still be in poverty because they'll spend on wants before needs.

This appears to be a completely unfounded assumption.

And it makes the unwarranted implication that YOU know better than THEM how THEY should spend THEIR money; Which is quite an impressive feat on your part, given that you don't know ANYTHING about them; Not even who THEY are.

Are you a god?

Most people in poverty are there because they put wants above needs. And the result of them getting a windfall shows what happens.

Yeah, who would have EVER thought that people who have been financially oppressed for their entire lives, would make unwise choices with windfall?

Why do people who have always had money, know more about how to handle money than people who have never had any money? Fucking mysterious, ain’t it @Loren Pechtel ?

My problem with Loren's claim is his use of the word "most". Certainly there are many who do put their "wants above needs". I know many myself, including in my own family. Whether they account for MOST of those in poverty needs to be supported with evidence. I am doubtful it is most, but I would be curious to know what percentage it is.

 

[southernhybrid]

I have no idea where Loren gets the idea that most poor people are poor because they put wants about needs. Most of my former home health patients were poor and I don't remember a single one of them having anything special. They lived in run down rentals, subsidized ghetto like apartments, some owned tiny run down homes or they stayed with younger relatives who helped them out. They had no luxuries. They never ate out and very few of them had dependable transportation. When I worked in public health in a maternity clinic, my patients had very modest lifestyles and all but one of my patients returned to the family planning clinic to get birth control, so they wouldn't likely have another unplanned pregnancy.

I have poor friends and none of them have anything special, although one sometimes gets her nails done and sometimes I give her money to get her nails done. You know why? Because I think even poor people should have a little special treat now and then and getting her nails done is my friend's special treat. If it were not for her wonderful family, she wouldn't be able to survive. The poor people I've met and have become friends with are some of the dearest, often most generous people I've ever known or had as patients.

So, Loren, how many poor friends do you have? How many poor people do you know personally? Have you been to their homes? Exactly what type of wasteful spending have you seen? I've seen more wasteful spending among the middle class and the wealthy, not so much from the poor. My middle class sister has always lived above her means and now she's having a hard time wondering if she and her husband can afford to stay in NJ, a very expensive state with very high taxes.


And btw, aren't you the one who is against the minimum wage, or am I thinking of someone else? If we had an actual living wage, maybe we would have fewer poor people. If companies brought back pensions and paid CEOs a lot less, maybe we'd have fewer older poor people. It's kind of hard to live on an SS entitlement of 1500 dollars a month, which is about the average amount now.

My late father was a disabled vet who received about 3K tax free money per month from the VA and another 1500 from SS disability. My mom worked part time and they also received a tax break on their home. He worked until he was about 50, and then wasn't emotionally able to work any longer due to severe PTSD. He applied several times before he was able to be approved for disability. I'm sure there are a lot of veterans who don't have the motivation, basic knowledge and perseverance to keep applying for disability. But, if it were not for that disability money, my parents would have been poor, despite living rather frugal lives and not having many of what most of us would consider luxuries, although due to my father's ability to buy a fixer upper and renovate it, they did make some money in real estate during most of their younger years. Not everyone can do that.

When a person can't work due to some type of disability, how are they supposed to climb out of being poor. My little city has a rather high rate of poverty, unfortunately. How does one rise out of poverty if they are working for 12 or 15 dollars an hour. I'm using those rates because there are a lot of entry level jobs that pay those hourly rates.

So, I'm asking for the details of how you've determined that it's poor people who are responsible for their situation. You sound like my late father in law. He used to say something like, "if people would put a dollar away a week, they'd have plenty of money in old age". But, he was born in 1915, so that might be how he managed to lifted himself out of poverty and then went on to start a small business. Not everyone is capable of doing that.

And, while a lot of immigrants do lift themselves out of poverty, a lot never do. I read an article in one of the major newspapers about a week or so ago about how farm workers who are immigrants sometimes are working into their 80s because they have no SS or pensions and while some of them saved, the amount they were able to save was pittance, usually less than 10K.

I'm just challenging your belief that poor people are to blame for their situation. That claim sort of reminds me of the Reagan era "welfare queen" myth. I see Zip beat me to that.

 

[Elixir]

My problem with Loren's claim is his use of the word "most".

Yeah, that is the nut of it. I can totally recall many many times I have “put wants above needs”. It’s an entirely human thing to do, and I’d bet the farm that even Loren has done it. But due to my circumstances (and I assume, Loren’s) the impact of those decisions were, if not negligible, then also not crippling.

I know many myself, including in my own family. Whether they account for MOST of those in poverty needs to be supported with evidence. I am doubtful it is most, but I would be curious to know what percentage it is.

Right. I’d also wonder if poor people are more likely or less likely than affluent people to “put wants above needs”. I suspect that the affluent person defines their needs in ways that justify their wants. “I need to trade in that Beemer before it hits 60k miles”, thereby assuring that they are always addressing “needs”. They “need” a new BMW, but they really “want” a Bugatti Veyron.

 

[Elixir]

if you only changed the highest bracket, it was completely absurd and a non-starter. To get to the total amount that would be needed, you have to increase ALL of the tax brackets, and not my immaterial amounts.

Right. Even “poor” people making a mere $60-80k would have to chip in a few grand, in order to save the top brackets from having to endure a 95% tax on the billions they make above $200k/yr. It would be a very dark day for avocado toast and mega-yacht vendors.
Of course if the tax was progressive, it might only cost the poor $60-80k crowd a few hundred bucks.
But yeah- you’d have to go full Eisenhower on the billionaires if you wanted them alone to pay for a meaningful UBI. I wonder why conservatives always present this stuff in such terms, when there is no way in hell that anyone is going to try to wrest that kind of tax rate from the clenched fists of the billionaire class.

 

[laughing dog]

You can give them a better house and food but they'll still be in poverty because they'll spend on wants before needs.

This appears to be a completely unfounded assumption.

And it makes the unwarranted implication that YOU know better than THEM how THEY should spend THEIR money; Which is quite an impressive feat on your part, given that you don't know ANYTHING about them; Not even who THEY are.

Are you a god?

According to a surprisingly large snd historically persistent portion of the population, poverty is the result of choices on the part of the poor. It is really a combination of condescension and arrogance that had been around for many centuries .

The thing is most people can climb out of being poor--this leaves the ones who are trapped because of their behavior (and some who are trapped by disability or the like.) I see a lot of immigrants come here with far greater barriers but with the attitudes needed to succeed. They start poor, they don't stay poor.

I agree. Some people climb out of poverty while some do not. But using that observation to conclude that most poor people remain poor because of their choices is illogical.

 

[Elixir]

Some people climb out of poverty while some do not. But using that observation to conclude that most poor people remain poor because of their choices is illogical.

Many, maybe most, poor people DO remain poor because of their choices. They chose the wrong lottery numbers for one thing. But mainly, they have never learned how to make good financial choices because they have never had finances to make good choices about. Any “good” choice they make is largely lucky (e.g. good lottery numbers) and is going to produce results that will be drowned out, in a sea of bad choices and urgent needs. Breaking that cycle is possible, but usually only with “outside” help.