Topic: Should UBI Replace all Welfare Systems? - page 5. (Read 1375 times)

That right there sounds prone to abuse and unfairness if applied to any significant extent outside of a limited experiment. Expect shitloads of "unmarried" or suddenly "divorced" couples claiming $13k each. Kids need to eat and go to school and can't earn for themselves.

The only way this could possibly work at least to some extent as a replacement for welfare without its accompanying bureaucracy is if it's straight $13k for everyone, not dependent on marital status or age limitations, but you would still need some government involvement to make sure that e.g. kids are not starving and people with disabilities or other issues have a fair chance. Unless we're disregarding all that as part of the whole welfare system, in which case we might as well cut the UBI off at the age of 65 and let them old-timers fend for themselves.

As the program right now is speculation the UBI is generally applied to only adults, or persons in the age of majority.
I haven't looked into how many of the pilot programs were calculated but some actually provide a lesser amount to couples. So If you or I as an individual were to receive 13000 as a couple we may receive 21000.

I'm not going to lie if the only thing keeping someone at there back breaking job is that they "need" that amount if money, I think them being able to take a lesser wage for the trade off of better mental health or less hard labor good for them. This would allow people to make decisions based on more than the dollars earned.

As with any system there will be people who try and abuse it or give it a bad name. I personally feel the overall net benefit will be a society that has improved mental health, and a stronger workforce because at the lower to medium skill jobs people will make a choice not just accept circumstance.

To hellfish's post about donating.
That was refreshing to see and something I had not considered. I like the idea that there are some out there who realise what they have is enough and would be willing to use this as an attempt to help lift others

I think this effect would be far larger than many here seem to believe.

What used to be called "middle class" makes what - $60k a year? (median family income in the US). Now imagine a family of four getting $52k "free". Would they stay in their back-breaking dead-end jobs? You could say they might be more inclined to move into more satisfying perhaps less paying jobs to supplement their UBI but that might make it even worse by displacing less educated/qualified people currently holding those positions. UBI has a potential of creating a massive disruption in the job market and I'm not sure it would be a positive one. Remember we would still need a solid tax base to support the UBI. Wouldn't want to end up with e.g. 25% VAT/sales tax.

Another negative effect could be inflation. I know the theory is that it would be just replacing current welfare system, but for a lot of people it would be additional disposable income and depending on how they spend it we might end up with price changes that would create new social problems in housing, healthcare, etc.

How about incentivizing low income working people with UBI money, if you have a job but it's below XX,XXX a year get a bump from UBI, if you don't work and are able too, you need to not be given as much.

Yeah, I agree. In a country like the US, you really would need to have a different amount for different regions I think. If not, then it wouldn't have the desired effect in big cities. On the other hand, it it was more in the big cities, people might want to go there to get more, not fully realizing that they'd just spend it all there. Maybe, if it was the same everywhere, it would discourage people from going to big cities. They'd stay in smaller cities more, get the same amount of money and live on less. It's sort of hard to predict I guess.

I'm looking forward to the healthcare ideas. Thanks for the discussion.

Well, the thing is that the current system isn't working it's a bureaucratic mess which isn't (in my view) helping people lift out of the welfare program anyway. UBI is what is needed to bring some real change to the system -- and this reformed system is one which is going to spur growth.

To your entire response as a whole I'd support capping the program out at a certain point, but it shouldn't be a point where the benefits discourage people to work harder.

I'd propose a change where people don't get an income if they earn above a certain point, for an examples sake I'm going to say 250k (adjusted for cost of living in certain areas, so it is the right number in rural areas and in big cities where things are more expensive) I'm open to debate on pretty much anything on here, I'm throwing out these numbers for examples sake.

So the whole 13,000 a year could potentially increase if you remove millions of people from receiving that. But this should never be a substitute for working, and that's something that I want to stress.

Is replacing the current social assistance programs with a wealth distribution plan really a good idea?  What I mean is currently welfare budget is reserved for "those" in need which is a pretty small percentage of People.  If we take the same budget (meaning the 13k threshold) and redistribute it to EVERYONE, folks who need the assistance will get much less.

I would love a "free" 13k, but I don't need it.  A family making 36k a year needs it more than I do, so why not talk about increasing the threshold for these programs.

Btw IMO it's not only welfare that's not keeping up and meeting the needs.  I see skilled blue collar people that could once but a home with those skills.  Now with the price of house's sky rocketing and those wages not corresponding don't allow a new young skilled person to have the hope of a buying a family home.

13k is such a small amount of money who could hope to live on that a year?  The poor will get poorer and the rich will get insignificantly richer.

I forgo my 13k per year so someone who needs it can have it.  The welfare system sucks, but redistributing it people that clearly don't need it seems counter productive to me!

This is the case with what I'm saying from my side here, some people may say that this isn't the right way to go about things but I feel it is so. I'm not advocating for removing welfare programs for those that are disabled from work -- but I don't think you should receive any other welfare if THIS is the way forward. It's also the only way to go forward while making this UBI system have a net zero on the governmental dollar.

I do agree with what you're saying, but when you are talking about welfare systems, do you also mean that healthcare would be included into that?
If that's the case, some people would be off far worse than under the current system, as they could not possibly pay their medical costs from the UBI they're receiving.

I'm passionately in favor of implementing UBI, I really think that current welfare systems (for unemployment) are severely flawed.

Lately I've also been more and more interested in seeing UBI implementations through some form of cryptocurrency.
Now, let me preface this by saying that I do not think these will magically solve poverty in the future, but they can grow to be viable additional income for people in third world countries.

It's pretty amazing to see how many such projects there already are. Currently there are at least 23 such projects. Source

Of course, there are a lot of things that must go into consideration, I don't know on the exact cost of living differences (based on studies) but I think that this would have to be much more fleshed out then giving everyone 13,000 a year and calling it a day. I do think there must be cost of living differences but on average what this SHOULD account for $13,000 for each American citizen -- this is what it would average out to with the differences in cost of living.


I have family which operates small businesses who rely on the low-skilled labor and have seen the hardships they've had to endure to ensure that they can keep their clients, maintain their profits, and tries to ensure that their businesses run smoothly while having to work with fewer employees. It's tough to see, and I don't think min wage ends up helping anyone when employment is being cut due to mandatory wage increases.

But back onto the topic, I do have good intentions with opening up the conversation to people on here-- and I really do enjoy seeing all of the differing opinions which are present on the topic.

I'll try to get back with a little write-up on healthcare and stuff along those lines, thanks all for being apart of this conversation.

I can agree with that, I just didn't believe that scrapping minimum wage all together would be beneficial to the plan. There are a lot of factors at play with any monetary distribution like this; for instance do we provide the same UBI to an Alaska resident as you would someone in New York or Peurto Rico. These factors are significantly easier to approach in smaller countries, but should always be dealt with in a well thought out manner.

My country is no different, there are communities here that resemble a far off land where they pay 5-10X what I do for almost every daily use item. Due to that I would expect there to be some form of weighted calculation to take these things into account.


No worries, I really only bring these points up to stimulate the mind on the subject. I mean no disrespect when I say that it shows how despite having a well reasoned opinion about the subject there are always aspects that have been overlooked. I don't envy the person who takes on the idea and tries to draft the initial launches of these programs; if they mean to launch them with the serious intent of success.

I did cut the portion in regards to small business, but I am no stranger to those factors; having successfully run a failed retail outlet myself. That was a great example of what a knee jerk reaction causes if you don't think of the secondary and tertiary impacts of legislation and regulation.

I think that is ONLY true if the other welfare systems aren't removed alongside the addition of UBI. I would understand your point if the other welfare systems weren't removed as well. But in the current state of the welfare system, work is disincentivized as you aren't allowed to make more income then the set amount OR you will lose benefits.

That is the part that disincentivizes working, but it is a part of the current system which has a steep drop-off point for people who are trying to progress and grow. This isn't the case with UBI, as you're going to be getting your set amount of benefits and it doesn't matter if you a shit ton of money or you earn nothing.

I've seen report after report that says that if all other welfare programs (including welfare ones are removed) the UBI system would cost the same amount as the current welfare system. So an enormous tax burden wouldn't be coming alongside this addition of UBI.

There's no question that it would create a slight disincentive to work, but I do not think that it would have an enormous effect on people's willingness to work.
Some basic income experiments have also shown this, but I'm careful to to over-generalize, since there has only been a limited number of experiments done.

https://qz.com/1205591/a-universal-basic-income-experiment-in-alaska-shows-employment-didnt-drop/

Now it can definitely be said that most experiments do not include the enormous tax burden that would accompany UBI.
Here's another point of view:

https://www.cis.org.au/app/uploads/2017/11/rr32-snapshot.pdf (UBI – Universal Basic Income is an Unbelievably Bad Idea)


Not really sure what you're implying here. I assume you mean that you think that welfare systems are currently run inefficiently? Or are you actually advocating completely removing all welfare systems?

This is true, I was just stating that UBI and the current welfare bureaucracy machine would be equal in costs. It's also a given that the payments of UBI don't increase (beyond inflation) -- if this were to occur by some politicians who increase the 13,000 to a different number (though this is the same risk which is present with all welfare programs, you can't stop politicians from increasing the benefits to please / sway some section of voters)


I don't know if I can agree with this. I do know that Theymos was trying to get at the fact that if everyone is now getting government assistance (UBI) then maybe minimum wage hikes shouldn't be so prevalent across the nation. Maybe we should stick with the national minimum wage (which is a lot lower then some states -- in the US of course) rather then trying to hike the minimum wage.

Some people may think that minimum wage hikes help the economy -- but they don't, they screw small businesses the hardest and all that ends up happening is bussineses are really only left with three options (see this article as well - https://www.businessinsider.com/minimum-wage-leads-to-job-losses-2017-3?IR=T)

• Cut margins of your business (this may be possible for some, but not all businesses may have this option)
• Raise prices (also, mostly impossible for businesses in a culture which is VERY price sensitive)
• Reducing employees. (this is the most possible one companies may further look into robots / automated machines to remove the lowest skilled labor)

That's something which is a really tough issue to dive into, I'm going to admit I would like to research the issue before I comment on healthcare at all. I'll make another comment in the thread relating to UBI and healthcare at some point. Just wanted you to know I wasn't avoiding the question.


That's actually a really good question and I've never read anything relating to disabled people and UBI -- I'm going to read into that a little bit as well and post that part into the healthcare post I'm planning for this thread.

I like that you broke down some of the options. Hadn't even thought about how it would be much easier to go back to school. You talk about trying a new position. I think that the key is that people won't be afraid to quit. I really think that we need more people quitting. So many people stay at jobs they don't like because they are afraid that they won't find another job and they'll end up with no money. UBI would help minimize that fear. People doing jobs they don't like greatly reduces our productivity as a society. They'll always try to do the bare minimum.
What about people with disabilities, for example? Wouldn't that be considered welfare? I mean, what about people who literally can't make more money themselves? I feel like healthcare is a separate issue. $10,000 a year is not going to cover your healthcare if you go to the hospital a couple times.

I think UBI would go along way in replacing the welfare system in any country. The amount of waste the bureaucracy that multiple levels of multiple organisations bring to the current system does significantly more harm than good. One benefit I see for individuals in the current system is removing the stigma behind receiving/applying for benefits; as everyone would be receiving this.
Beyond that the UBI provides opportunity if you know you have a certain amount coming to you regardless with no stalled wait period or chance of denial, you can take risks.

• You can accept that new position without the fear it may not work out
• You can make plans for upgrading in post-secondary
• Maybe you know feel you have more disposable income to inject back into the economy
• Start-up a business, knowing you have something backing you for a while

The problem is in finding the right amount. UBI is designed to be a system that will supplement your earnings, not as something to make a career of. It essentially should remove the situations where someone is choosing between the necessities of life at any given time. So I don't feel eliminating a safety net regulation such as minimum wage would benefit the system as a whole; because the UBI amount would likely be relying on a national average of minimum wages.

In regards to healthcare, I'm not even sure what it would cost me to show up to emerg with a broken leg, or to have a special operation. I'm glad I don't have to think about that, it's a perk of where I was born. I understand that it's different in the U.S, and that insurance costs can also be fairly arbitrary. So if UBI were to replace all health care related social assistance, I would expect the average cost of insurance be factored into this. Not just the average cost of the currently insured, but also those that currently chose other necessities over insurance.

Not being well versed on tax breaks or loopholes, there may also be several of those programs that could be lumped into the trash can if UBI were launched.

---

Regardless of your view on UBI or what you want it to achieve, I feel we are a long way out. The biggest problems are that there needs to be some longterm trials that make it to the end. They need to be held in an unbiased manner to determine the effectiveness of the program. Thanks to changing of governments and them usually trying to "salt the earth" of their predecessors this is becoming difficult. That is largely due to the fact that many people do not understand what UBI is, and look at it like it's expanding welfare.

I would like to point out that the freeloaders are constantly looking for more ways to get free stuff. It would be more accurate to say "It's not like the $10,000 of free money a year is the end, it's only the beginning!"

Thanks for pointing that out. Nobody had ever mentioned that to me before. I'll try to be better at it.
I just realized another way that we could be more productive. If you give everyone benefits, like you say, then you wouldn't need to worry about who deserves them or not. You could actually eliminate a huge amount of people who work for the government to determine who deserves help and who doesn't. This would free up a lot of people from pointless work. It would also free up a lot of resources that went into that.


I would like to point out that the US is constantly digging itself further into debt. IT would be more accurate to say, "It's not like we're going to be digging further into debt any more quickly."

Of course. I may have used the wrong wording when I said, then we enter a world of more production -- I meant this as in only talking about the United States.


This is one of the main reasons that I think UBI is necessary, I beleive that the current welfare programs ARE capable of supporting graft, corruption, AND political favoritism. UBI is a system which is just mailing out checks to American citizens, nothing more and nothing less.


I may not have listed out all of the programs that I wanted to be removed, but I was pointing the finger at all welfare related programs -- some even say that Social Security should be replaced as well. I tend to agree with that personally. I've never seen any research relating to work-related regulation (such as min wage) but I do think that is an interesting point and I'm probably going to research it further.

I'll also address the political possibility of this. I know that if something like this was ever enacted, not all other welfare systems would be removed -- there would be no way that a conservative vision like this would get through both chambers of congress and signed by the president unscathed by moderates or dems. So, I don't think I would ever support another version of UBI - I fully agree with you that it's only acceptable if ALL other welfare programs are removed.


This type of goal faces a larger issue of political impossibility, while I may support something like this as well -- I do think that UBI is a much better system than the thousands of welfare systems with a wasteful amount of staff and money being used on this staff and other resources.


As theymos quoted before, 13,000 per year would be cheaper than all of the current welfare systems which are present in the United States. So it's not like we're going to be digging further into debt.

Universal basic income, along with other welfare systems, create disincentives to work and otherwise generate income. As such, it would be a very bad thing if UBI, in any form were enacted.

I would much rather see the various welfare programs be eliminated and/or reformed over time then see some kind of UBI system be enacted that would likely only grow and expand over time.


The only instance in which I would support UBI in any form would be in places like AK where government income far exceeds expenditures, and the government can pay their citizens some amount every year from the income their assets generates.