|
|
 Originally Posted by CoccoBill
It wouldn't be a whole new program in addition to the old ones, it would replace most if not all current ones.
Fantasy.
Which one takes more effort, processing the filings of millions of people, constantly adjusting brackets, monitoring people for abuse of the system, probably a whole bunch of other activities I can't right now think of, or, setting up an automated recurring payment? I would assume were talking about a difference of thousands of man-years of labor, with all the facilities, systems and overhead running the system of thousands of people entails.
It's not a question of effort. It's a question of resources. An able-bodied educated presentable 25 year old has far different "basic necessities" than a disabled 65 year old. Just the healthcare costs alone create an astronomical difference between the two. If you're telling me everyone gets the same fixed amount, then clearly you have to err on the high side to make sure the 65 year old is covered.
That means the 25 year old is getting alot of free money he doesn't really need. That's money that could be used to fund the administration of a more sensible, need-based welfare system. I'm not a fan of funding government bureaucracy. But in this case, you've given me the choice of giving free money to someone who doesn't need it, or creating a job. No contest.
Nope, the point is exactly that everyone gets the same amount. I suggest you read up on UBI. I'm sure there can/could be some exceptions, for example some criteria to receive higher payments, but that would defeat a lot of the purpose.
Pretty much my whole point. You seem to be over-estimating how long it will take for this process to be perverted. You say it "can/could" happen. I say it's certain. And it would likely happen virtually overnight.
Again, a recurring payment to all live citizens doesn't sound too complicated compared to any current form of social benefits.
It also sounds unnecessary and economically counter productive.
The question was how would UBI improve on status quo. What you describe is very much a part of status quo, not some new drawback of UBI.
No, the question is would UBI improve the status quo better than some other measure? Curtailing fraud waste and abuse within the current system seems like a far better option. Welfare should work. It's complicated now because it's been expanded for political purposes. I fail to see how UBI would not be similarly exploited. Exploitation is the problem, not a lack of UBI. Giving the exploiters something else to exploit won't make anything better.
They have to prove they're looking for work here too. Sit down for a moment and think how much work is wasted generated nationwide to handle the data and make decisions based on it.
I'm still not on board with including unemployment insurance as part of this discussion. But, I would say that the "work" you're referring to exists in the form of wage-paying, tax-paying jobs performed by people. The money is still going into the economy. It's just that people are working for it, rather than being handed it. What advantage is UBI providing?
With UBI, you'd just be disbursing the same money among more people, so everyone has a little less and they are dependent on the government for it. Why is that good???
Unemployment benefits are government mandated and operated here,
Here too.
but the point is to also get rid of welfare,
Why? What's wrong with welfare if it's used as a safety net for people who are underprivileged or experiencing hardship? What "problem" does this create that needs to be solved with UBI?
|
Reply With Quote