In an ideal world, there would be no welfare whatsoever. However, in the US I do think that UBI is a more reasonable path forward than continuing the current welfare system. Currently the US has probably thousands of different welfare programs, each with tons of overhead. Better to just mail everyone a check. It also significantly improves incentives, for example fixing the issue you mentioned of people getting trapped in welfare. According to Charles Murray's In Our Hands, $13k/year would be cheaper than the existing welfare system. Here's an interview with Murray.
However, I only consider it acceptable if it replaces all other welfare, including heath-care-related welfare, and I suspect that this will never be politically possible. I'd also like it to result in an elimination of all work-related regulations such as minimum wage, since with UBI there should be no excuse that people are being forced to work and therefore the government needs to protect them.
Topic: Should UBI Replace all Welfare Systems? - page 6. (Read 1349 times)
....if you remove these limits and just give EVERYONE benefits -- then you're going to enter a world which is more productive as they have the reason to be more productive. As they're not going to lose out if they attempt to progress.
This is incompatible with lax or unrestricted immigration of course. I know you restricted it to US citizens, just saying.
But a fundamental rule of government is that no programs are allowed to be considered which are not capable of supporting graft, corruption and political favoritism.
Before I respond to you Glum, I do want to let you know that it is kind of frowned upon to quote an entire post when you're responding to me -- all it creates is more of an annoyance when people are reading through responses. I know you're new to the forum, so this is just for next time and so you don't bother anyone!
But onto the topic here
This is exactly what the current welfare system does, it makes people stay below some limits -- sometimes these limits are income related, but they are sometimes based on marital status and so on. -- in order to retain their valuable benefits. This sort of system, in my opinion, is un-American.
Exactly. I think that these limits do nothing but make people double think working hard if you remove these limits and just give EVERYONE benefits -- then you're going to enter a world which is more productive as they have the reason to be more productive. As they're not going to lose out if they attempt to progress.
But onto the topic here
Quote
It seems like a no brainer that it's better to "stay down" sometimes.
This is exactly what the current welfare system does, it makes people stay below some limits -- sometimes these limits are income related, but they are sometimes based on marital status and so on. -- in order to retain their valuable benefits. This sort of system, in my opinion, is un-American.
Quote
This will make society more productive as a whole.
Exactly. I think that these limits do nothing but make people double think working hard if you remove these limits and just give EVERYONE benefits -- then you're going to enter a world which is more productive as they have the reason to be more productive. As they're not going to lose out if they attempt to progress.
This is going to be a long one, and I want people to be involved with this issue so I can hear all sides of the argument.
In the recent years, there has been a push from the right and the left to introduce a Universal Basic Income (UBI) -- which in short, is a set amount of income (pegged to inflation) which is provided to you if you're a US citizen. This money is given to you with no strings attached. I'm going to use an example and say that every American is given $10,000 a year regardless of the income that they have their marital status, and so on.
This in and so of itself removes the cliff dive which is apart of the welfare system we have now. As the welfare system, we have now may give a large number of benefits to someone who makes under $35,000 -- but won't give a dime to someone who is married and makes $36,000 a year. This practically means that the current system does not incentivize growth, it incentivizes you to stay under the imposed income (and other barriers) to get your benefits.
This new UBI system would give you money either way and then you'd be allowed to go work as hard as you want or as little as you want. I think (alongside some economists) that this is going to spur growth as it incentivizes people to go ahead and work hard to continue to succeed as they aren't held down by welfare limits.
I also want to say that with this system, some conservatives and libertarians think that the entire welfare system should be removed -- which includes, Medicare, Medicaid, and then the various federal and state programs which go alongside with it. To them (which I agree with), this plan is a substitute for every single other program that is currently present in the US relating to welfare. I'm not going to go into detail about what the left thinks the right thing to do with UBI is, but I do think they want to remove some programs and then add this on to the current welfare system -- but I think some of the liberal-leaning people who post here can chime in with that side of things.
I do want to stress that I don't know if $10,000 per year is the right number, it may be different based on research. I was JUST using an example.
I do think that UBI can work as a way to remove the hundreds of state and federal programs which aren't necessary when the benefits can come from one central source -- which only has to vet if you're a US citizen or not -- This is a way to remove the massive bureaucracy, and then introduce a program which will have the same effect to the people who need welfare.
In the recent years, there has been a push from the right and the left to introduce a Universal Basic Income (UBI) -- which in short, is a set amount of income (pegged to inflation) which is provided to you if you're a US citizen. This money is given to you with no strings attached. I'm going to use an example and say that every American is given $10,000 a year regardless of the income that they have their marital status, and so on.
This in and so of itself removes the cliff dive which is apart of the welfare system we have now. As the welfare system, we have now may give a large number of benefits to someone who makes under $35,000 -- but won't give a dime to someone who is married and makes $36,000 a year. This practically means that the current system does not incentivize growth, it incentivizes you to stay under the imposed income (and other barriers) to get your benefits.
This new UBI system would give you money either way and then you'd be allowed to go work as hard as you want or as little as you want. I think (alongside some economists) that this is going to spur growth as it incentivizes people to go ahead and work hard to continue to succeed as they aren't held down by welfare limits.
I also want to say that with this system, some conservatives and libertarians think that the entire welfare system should be removed -- which includes, Medicare, Medicaid, and then the various federal and state programs which go alongside with it. To them (which I agree with), this plan is a substitute for every single other program that is currently present in the US relating to welfare. I'm not going to go into detail about what the left thinks the right thing to do with UBI is, but I do think they want to remove some programs and then add this on to the current welfare system -- but I think some of the liberal-leaning people who post here can chime in with that side of things.
I do want to stress that I don't know if $10,000 per year is the right number, it may be different based on research. I was JUST using an example.
I do think that UBI can work as a way to remove the hundreds of state and federal programs which aren't necessary when the benefits can come from one central source -- which only has to vet if you're a US citizen or not -- This is a way to remove the massive bureaucracy, and then introduce a program which will have the same effect to the people who need welfare.
Jump to: