America's Largest Universal Basic Income Program Yet Proposed By Mayor of Los Angeles (msn.com) 275
The mayor of Los Angeles is proposing the largest universal income pilot program in America, saying he hopes the program will "light a fire across our nation."
Newsweek reports: Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti has proposed giving a "universal basic income" of $1000 a month to 2,000 poor local families for one year... The program would give 2,000 families below the federal poverty line monthly $1,000 checks for 12 months. The families could then spend the money however they please.
Garcetti said he hopes the program could provide a model for similar anti-poverty initiatives in other cities. "We have to end America's addiction to poverty..." Garcetti told LAist, a local news site affiliated with Southern California Public Radio. Similar programs are also being floated in at least four other L.A. county districts, according to the Los Angeles Times...
If approved, Garcetti's program would be at least the 12th time that a U.S. region has offered a basic income to its citizens.
Bloomberg notes that Los Angeles "will be the recipient of more than $1.3 billion in federal stimulus funds from the recently passed American Rescue Plan, which could be used to fund the payouts." Garcetti, a Democrat in his second term, is co-chair of Mayors for a Guaranteed Income, which has been advocating for the policy at the federal level and funding local programs. The group, which has 43 elected officials as members, was founded last year by then-Stockton-mayor Michael Tubbs. It has received $18 million in seed money from Twitter Inc. co-founder Jack Dorsey as well as $200,000 from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable arm of Michael Bloomberg, founder and majority owner of Bloomberg News's parent company.
California cities have been taking a lead with these programs... In San Francisco, grants and some revenue from hotel taxes will fund monthly payments of $1,000 to about 130 artists for six months beginning next month. Organizers said the pilot is the first to solely target artists. Oakland will tap private donations this summer to fund its guaranteed income program, providing $500 monthly to about 600 poor families.
Still, a majority of Americans oppose the federal government providing a guaranteed basic income, according to a survey last year by the Pew Research Center...
Ultimately the costs of such programs will be too big for cities to finance alone, he said. But with data proving it works, Garcetti said states and the federal government could be inspired to fund them.
Newsweek reports: Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti has proposed giving a "universal basic income" of $1000 a month to 2,000 poor local families for one year... The program would give 2,000 families below the federal poverty line monthly $1,000 checks for 12 months. The families could then spend the money however they please.
Garcetti said he hopes the program could provide a model for similar anti-poverty initiatives in other cities. "We have to end America's addiction to poverty..." Garcetti told LAist, a local news site affiliated with Southern California Public Radio. Similar programs are also being floated in at least four other L.A. county districts, according to the Los Angeles Times...
If approved, Garcetti's program would be at least the 12th time that a U.S. region has offered a basic income to its citizens.
Bloomberg notes that Los Angeles "will be the recipient of more than $1.3 billion in federal stimulus funds from the recently passed American Rescue Plan, which could be used to fund the payouts." Garcetti, a Democrat in his second term, is co-chair of Mayors for a Guaranteed Income, which has been advocating for the policy at the federal level and funding local programs. The group, which has 43 elected officials as members, was founded last year by then-Stockton-mayor Michael Tubbs. It has received $18 million in seed money from Twitter Inc. co-founder Jack Dorsey as well as $200,000 from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable arm of Michael Bloomberg, founder and majority owner of Bloomberg News's parent company.
California cities have been taking a lead with these programs... In San Francisco, grants and some revenue from hotel taxes will fund monthly payments of $1,000 to about 130 artists for six months beginning next month. Organizers said the pilot is the first to solely target artists. Oakland will tap private donations this summer to fund its guaranteed income program, providing $500 monthly to about 600 poor families.
Still, a majority of Americans oppose the federal government providing a guaranteed basic income, according to a survey last year by the Pew Research Center...
Ultimately the costs of such programs will be too big for cities to finance alone, he said. But with data proving it works, Garcetti said states and the federal government could be inspired to fund them.
Not UBI (Score:5, Insightful)
So by definition, it's means-tested. It's normal benefits and welfare, not UBI.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a way for officials to wash their hands of social programs. They can pat themselves on the back for giving people agency in how they choose to spend the assistant money. But ignores the economics that an individual spending on necessities pays retail prices while a large organization can cut out the middle man and spend more efficiently with bulk purchasing and distribution.
And the dumbest part about fake UBI is where people get some amount that is enough to solve one problem they face. But not any of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Programs like that need to phase out smoothly as a function of income, so that there aren't sudden effects where you earn an extra $100 but lose $500 in benefits. That is really hard to arrange with lots of different benefits programs, because different people will qualify for different programs, and it's hard to figure out -- much less coordinate -- a good phase-out across them.
That coordination problem is the biggest argument in favor of a UBI that replaces all other benefits: It can be relatively simple
Re: (Score:2)
but if they get a job stop supporting them right away.
Yours is a quick way to waste public resources and stress people out unnecessarily. Letting people who are earning but below the poverty line yo-yo between employed and unemployed because they can't afford food and rent and childcare while working.
Re: (Score:2)
You should read his comment again.
Re: (Score:2)
Welfare seems pretty dumb to me. Support people, but if they get a job stop supporting them right away. Don't know how you could support that over UBI.
Corporate welfare eclipses what the people get. Yet, it’s the latter that the masses are most outraged about.
Thing is, you only own what you can protect, and cutting off the poor would mean that, in very short order, the wealthy would own less and less as the throngs of poor stopped begging, and started taking shit.
Welfare is as much for the rich as i
Re: (Score:2)
Because they both do the exact same thing except the UBI is trivial to implement. Determining who is eligible for welfare is a pain in the ass. Sending everyone $1k/month is easy. Payroll taxes are easy.
The simplistic way to explain this at a level you'll understand is that you send everyone $1k every month, and you tax their payroll $1k every month. If they get paid more than that, they effectively don't get a bonus from UBI. If they get paid less than that, they're on a sliding scale from $0 up to $1k if
Re: (Score:2)
And the dumbest part about fake UBI is where people get some amount that is enough to solve one problem they face. But not any of the other problems. Do you spend $1000 on rent, food, or medication. Pick any two (or one if you live in L.A.). $1000 seems like a lot, but it's substantial less than I received through unemployment insurance 20 years ago when purchasing power (lower rents) is taken into account.
Remember this $1,000 supplement is on top of any and all current assistance programs.
Re: Not UBI (Score:2)
Good point. The whole point of UBI is the escape from the welfare model: monthly assistance will not be cut off if you make more. Also interested on the effect on middle class family. Dad keeps working , but Mom goes back to school or starts a business? That is supposed to be a productivity booster for increased tax revenue.
Also, why aren't they experimenting with UB specifics? UB health, UB housing assistance, UB food. Jobs prevent alcoholism, that whole rock bottom thing is not there when you have cash ev
Re: (Score:2)
UBI is a massive troll-meme anyway. It would wreck entire national economies, and destroy productivity.
Re: (Score:3)
We have 320 Million citizens in the US - if we gave every citizen $1,000/month, $12,000/year works out to $3.84T/year.
As soon as you start shaving off income levels, you eventually wind up looking at the Federal Poverty Level as a useful cut-off, and it turns out there are probably about 10% of Americans live under the FPL [census.gov], so that comes out to $384BN/year. Where are we going to find that $384BN/year?
Re:Not UBI (Score:5, Interesting)
I haven't gone back through any of the more recent proposals, but as the earlier plans outlined it, the money comes from a combination of factors. With UBI, you cease wellfare, and unemployment, housing assistance, food programs. Some of these are very large cost centers that also have high degrees of cost associated with managing the programs. Essentially all forms of government assistance halt and the UBI covers all of them.
From a google search:
In FY 2020 total US government spending on welfare — federal, state, and local — was “guesstimated” to be $$1,203 billion.
2019 Unemployment benefits cost: $520 billion
Federal expenditures for USDA's 15 food and nutrition assistance programs totaled $92.4 billion in fiscal 2019
Now obviously the number would go up from your suggested 10% when you include unemployment as people above the poverty line do use that program, but if the amounts paid by it are capped at the UBI level, it would have some interesting effects on the total amounts being paid out.
That's just a few items, and there are a large number of other factors and programs to evaluate of course. Just referencing some of what I'd read a good while back.
Re: Not UBI (Score:5, Interesting)
No, read their comment properly - everyone gets it, but not everyone gets to keep it every month. If you get it one month and that month your income is over a given threshold, then your income taxes will recoup the UBI at bare minimum. If you lose your extra income the following month, the UBI is still there and you get to keep it as your income tax will reduce appropriately.
An example would be that you get an “personal allowance” of $12,000 which is untaxed so long as you earn less than $40,000 (figures based on real life but translated to USD for this example - the actual example is from the UK income tax system). The UBI would cover the $12,000 easily enough, and you get to keep it if you are low income. If you are high income, the personal allowance is reduced to $0 and tax kicks in at a rate to progressively claw it back the more above $40,000 you earn. If you lose your income, the personal allowance is instantly reinstated and you get to keep the UBI income.
Of course, for this to actually work you need a sane taxation system, which the US does not have. I can see this working in places such as the UK, NZ etc where the average person doesnt ever have to fill out a tax form, but for the US I can see it being a paperwork nightmare.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd think by now after god knows how many "Universal Basic Income" pilots, that people would have figured out the "Universal" part. But no. Each and every time, it goes only to the poor.
We will never know how effective, or how economically feasible a UBI can be, at least through a pilot, until subjects are chosen randomly, and not based on income.
Every other pilot program simply confirms the obvious: giving money to poor people will, on balance, improve their lives for the better. I just find it incredulo
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, basic science time...
This is not a correlational study. They are not interested in how this group is different from other groups. This study is interested in how one specific group will spend extra guaranteed income.
In this case, it doesn't make sense to take a random sample from the entire population. Here, they're taking a random sample from a specific population.
I'll repeat that for you: This study is using a random sample. It's just not the kind of study you think it should be.
If you think
Re: (Score:3)
Money is given to some people after it is taken from some other people. THIS IS NOT FREE MONEY
You mean like the billions the airlines are receiving right now?
Gosh, now I’m kind of angry about it. Screw the poor people getting a G apiece, those cocksuckers who treat me like a nuisance, those rootin’ tootin’ most pollute in’ est, you paid for a seat but we sold it to someone else first, lowdown double-crossin’, bamboozlenest, son of a one-eyed billy goat varmints are get
Re: (Score:2)
The end goal is to fund it by defunding other programs like wellfare, unemployment etc. It's not that suddenly we do UBI and it's all additional money taken from "hard working americans". Rather it's already part of the system of support and this is a better use of the funds than many existing programs that have monumental costs and overhead.
Heard that before (Score:2, Offtopic)
Prohibition, started by a self-described "progressive" temperance movement, was supposed to end poverty too.
The road to hell is paved with...how does it go?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So people were wrong about one thing years and years ago so we shouldn't do anything?
We should be skeptical about people hyping easy answers to complex problems.
Solutions should be tested and verified by objective researchers before being scaled up.
The test described in TFA is not objective, is not even real UBI, and has no predetermined criteria other than to "light a fire across our nation," whatever that means.
Re: (Score:2)
So people were wrong about one thing years and years ago so we shouldn't do anything?
Both the temperance movement and the UBI movement are doing the same thing: Making bad assumptions about what poverty actually is, and then assuming that their answer would work if only we forced it on everybody.
The UBI people just assume that poverty is strictly a money problem, and that if we just give people money then it goes away. This is beyond ridiculous -- for one, they're completely tossing out the idea of purchasing power. All that UBI will do is lower the purchasing power of the money that we alr
Re: (Score:2)
All that UBI will do is lower the purchasing power of the money that we already have
That doesn't make any sense. A UBI doesn't increase the money supply, it just distributes it differently.
Re: (Score:3)
Handing out "free" money (it isn't free, you know) has so many problems, and more as time goes on. I think the solution is 'somewhere else', which is why it'll never be found by t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a good point. Moving money makes an economy. If it's pooled at the top, it isn't moving. Putting it at the bottom is the quickest way to get it moving through local economies, supporting local businesses, and creating jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
So people were wrong about one thing years and years ago so we shouldn't do anything?
Um, hey, I don’t wanna be the one to, you know, have to tell you this, but we drew straws and I got the short one.
So, yeah um :
Slavery
The KKK
Jim Crow’
The whole “Civil War” thing
Eugenics
Snubbing Jesse Owens (even Hitler gave him a little wave, yeah Hitler, Motherfucking HITLER!)
Opposing the Civil Rights Act
Opposing the ERA
Making up the majority of public officials found guilty of corruption
Alec Bald
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
uneducated racist white men to tell women what they can do to their bodies.
More hysteria! Hysteria to me is like cowbell. I gotta have more! More buzzwords! More labels! Just MORE!
Tell you what, peep game:
Those motherfucken, titty-sicken, two-balled bitch, cousin-fuckin, uneducated white Caucasian, non-black non-Hispanic plagiarizing racist sexist psychopathic transphobic privileged xenophobic pedophile goat-fuckers should not tell women, WOMEN, our givers of life, our sisters, our mothers, or trans-gendere
Empowering the bureaucracy (Score:3, Insightful)
The bureaucracy always wants to make itself more powerful, like everything else in this world. If it gives away money, it gains power several ways: first, it decides who cannot get the free money, so you had better be nice to the bureaucracy or you'll lose out; second, it grows in size to administrate this giveaway; finally, it sabotages the successful in order to give to the struggling, which makes the successful (finally) need the bureaucracy as well. All are humbled, all must serve.
In case you haven't caught up with the past 300 years of human history, "equality" always means taking from the succeeding to give to the struggling, and never ends well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Empowering the bureaucracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmm... I would have thought unconditional money to everyone (UBI) would remove bureaucratic discretion and power and shrink the bureaucracy because you no longer need an unemployment administration ensuring people are applying for work.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm... I would have thought unconditional money to everyone (UBI) would remove bureaucratic discretion
RTFA. This project is not "unconditional money to everyone".
Re:Empowering the bureaucracy (Score:4, Insightful)
And you're probably right. The thing to remember is that none of the "UBI experiments" actually do a UBI. Picking 2000 families to hand some money to isn't "U", and since it's only going to last one year, the people receiving it are going to treat it like a windfall, NOT like a UBI.
If a nation wants to give a UBI a go, they need to give the money to everyone, and they need to do it for a long time (and by "long", I mean 50 years+). Then see how things work out over the next half century or so...
But these "give it to a few select people" for a "predefined short time" won't prove anything about the viability of a UBI, since people are going to react differently for "I got lucky for a year" than they would for "this is the new norm forever"....
Re: (Score:2)
That's a very true critique of this experiment. It is worth noting that some places have had a UBI, and it seems to produce a positive effect.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In case you haven't caught up with the past 300 years of human history, "equality" always means taking from the succeeding to give to the struggling, and never ends well.
Actually, the countries with the happiest inhabitants, the healthiest inhabitants, that are the most economically successful, and score very well on a number of such metrics have the highest degrees of income redistribution in the world. Correlation does not equal causation, but your claim that such redistribution 'never ends well' must be false given that reality.
Looking at the history books, one of the periods of greatest growth for the USA was after WW2, also a period of really high tax rates. Again, cor
Not a real UBI (Score:5, Insightful)
UBI by definition increases the taxes on everyone in order to be able to give a fixed amount to everyone.
In this case they are giving money only to some poors, and everybody else is paying for it. Of course any program paid by millions of tax payers to fun 2000 poor families is going to be a "success". It doesn't mean it scales.
What would be the tax rate if they expanded this program to the whole state or country? And more importantly, what would be the consequences of the added tax? Would people work less? Take less business ventures risks?
This trial, like other small scale UBI trials, is not going to answer any of those questions.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This trial is useless. I can already tell you the conclusions: the poors with an extra $1000/month have more to spend than those without it.
UBI is supposed to replace other programs (social security, unemployment income and others). Not be an other extra source of income. Those programs are often criticized because they create incentive for not finding a job, unlike UBI. If you keep them, your UBI trial is pretty much worthless.
Re: (Score:2)
Its free money (Score:4, Insightful)
Along those lines, any city could test UBI fairly easily with almost no startup capitol. Just impose an extra sales tax, collect those funds, and re-distribute them "fairly" to the citizens. Likely results will be
- People will drive to the next closest city to shop.
- Increase in the number of "citizens" as reflected by an uptick in postal boxes in use.
Incidentally, the same results will happen if a national VAT is imposed to pay for a national UBI
Re: (Score:2)
the word you're probably looking for is: socialism. Many, many people want socialism to take hold.
Personally I don't care about it either way, there are benefits in each direction. Really what I want more: for people to use correct terminology.
I just want people to say what they mean instead of dancing around the damn issues.
Re: (Score:2)
If the correct terminology of UBI is "socialism" where is the worker control of the means of production? What is getting de-commodified?
Re: (Score:2)
the word you're probably looking for is: socialism.
Socialism means government/worker ownership of the means of production.
UBI is not socialism.
Re: (Score:3)
The word may be socialism, but that term holds a negative connotation as many people confuse it with communism. So sometimes the best thing to do is just give it a new name.
Re:Its free money (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump, Obama, Clinton and Bush Junior all enacted legislation that directly led to massive increases in the national debt and the national deficit in order to line the pockets of their billionaire donors. I bet you didn't have one single word to say about "how the government is going to pay for the funds they distribute". Why the sudden concern now over a comparatively minuscule expenditure?
And if you knew anything at all about economics (which you obviously don't) you'd know that the inflation you're so terrified of has already been occurring. It has been taking place in the financial markets as near-zero interest rates have allowed investment banks (among others) to borrow money virtually for free and use it to inflate their stock prices while protecting themselves from the consequences of bad investments, and corporations to manufacture goods that sold poorly without paying a price due to the distorted market.
By the way, there's quite a bit of that shopping in Canada you seem so concerned about. Before COVID it was common to see busloads of American seniors cross the border to shop for medicine they needed but couldn't buy thanks to the sweetheart deals your government has made with the pharmaceutical giants. Because of where I live, I have seen that with my own eyes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Universal" Lottery (Score:2)
Basic income from a restricted lottery is not "universal" in any sense.
We already know this works at this scale. More experiments aren't producing useful research. They are just created local free lotteries for the poors.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
reanjr's point was, why keep testing a program we know works - give poor people money, and their lives are largely better, they can improve their situation. etc.
Aside from giving Gil Garceti something positive to talk about, what is the actual question this test will answer that hasn't been answered by countless other purported "UBI" tests?
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't staged deployment. This is a non-functional tech demo that could never be deployed in production.
Fiar test: closed system (Score:3)
Re: Fiar test: closed system (Score:2)
Fair enough. But then they should only spend it on businesses that are built, owned and operated by people that receive said money, and that are working only with materials from such businesses. And all tax money they pay should only be used for public utilities, schools, police etc for people from the program. This is to prevent syphoning off of UBI money via taxes and shopping.
Or otherwise it isn't really a closed system, is it? It's more like a semipermeable membrane system preventing money in, but allow
Re: Fiar test: closed system (Score:3)
Requiring "self-funding" from the lowest in the foodchain is the ridiculous part. There's industry, finance, collective resources that are being monetized at a large scale, where very few at the top reap all the benfits. Per-head GDP in the is roundabout 65k.
The people receiving UBI in various experiments are those either doing the heavy lifting (literally; the guy at the conveyor belt, the cab driver, the paont sprayer), or those who fell through the grid at least in part because of the process that manage
Re: Fiar test: closed system (Score:2)
To put it another way: you could always pick the 1000 wealthiest individuals of NY, hand each of them UBI of $1000 monthly for a year straight, require that they fund it only from the taxes they pay on their total wealth & income.
And then go: "See? UBI works! Let's do this on a natinal scale!1!!eleven!"
I think it's fine (Score:2)
People who are financially disadvantaged should be supported, but it would be best if they:
1) contribute back to society like a job or something, I also recognize that some can't do this because of disability (they are those who need the most support)
2) not waste the money (like drugs or gambling)
3) improve their situation and families situation
I'm sure many people who get money will do good with it.
Otherwise don't use my hard earned dollars from taxes, if the rich want to do this they can.
Re: (Score:2)
Good news, they're not using your money. They're using the government's!
how to pay for UBI (Score:3)
UBI should be paid for by taxing robotics/automation. It's a win-win. People won't be angry at robots "taking their job" because they'll be "taking the robots salary." Think about it this way, if you get paid $100 for hammering in a CPU into 100 laptop in one hour .. if a robot takes over that job .. and can do 1000 widgets in one hour.
Now follow this carefully ... because of "robot+UBI law", two things can happen:
1. You will be part owner of the robot .. so you can still get paid your $100 every hour. But instead of working, you can watch Netflix, study goat rearing, or whatever.
2. Because of the robots, the cost of laptops will reduce since it can produce more laptops. Therefore with your $100, laptops will be cheaper to you, and you can buy more things.
As long as we do UBI, robots are a good thing. They will increase the value of everyone's money. They can build stuff without causing long term health issues and will allow people to work less while still getting paid.
Yes the whole scheme collapses if we don't have UBI law .. just like without robots and automation plus labor laws you have child labor, sweatshops and slavery. Solution for the future UBI + robots. Neither will work without the other, but together it's exponential.
The word "Universal" (Score:4, Insightful)
And again... (Score:3)
Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti has proposed giving a "universal basic income" of $1000 a month to 2,000 poor local families for one year... The program would give 2,000 families below the federal poverty line monthly $1,000 checks for 12 months. The families could then spend the money however they please.
Cherry-picking 2,000 families isn't "universal"
California cities have been taking a lead with these programs... In San Francisco, grants and some revenue from hotel taxes will fund monthly payments of $1,000 to about 130 artists for six months beginning next month. Organizers said the pilot is the first to solely target artists. Oakland will tap private donations this summer to fund its guaranteed income program, providing $500 monthly to about 600 poor families.
Oakland is "cherry-picking" families (with children) below the poverty line that are people of color.
Still, a majority of Americans oppose the federal government providing a guaranteed basic income, according to a survey last year by the Pew Research Center...
Well, yeah.
Ultimately the costs of such programs will be too big for cities to finance alone, he said. But with data proving it works, Garcetti said states and the federal government could be inspired to fund them.
So the goal is to take money from everyone, run through government, then hand it back to people? Brilliant. Oh, wait, the idea is to take money from the "rich" then after running it through the government hand it out to everyone rich or not?
The issues around this idea seem to be:
- are we replacing existing welfare/assistance programs with a single payment/month or supplementing existing programs? (advocates like to say they would "replace" existing programs and roll the money into some form of UBI, but many families receive much more assistance in current programs than any previously-mentioned UBI level I've heard - for example rent subsidy, welfare, snap/ebt, etc., and I've never seen one of these UBI "trial programs" ever actually replace existing welfare/assistance recipient's previously received.)
- checks for everyone or just the "poor" (for whatever definition of poor you choose)?
- Funding sources for the program (seriously, at some point the "rich" run out of money)
UBI? (Score:2)
It's not universal. Stop calling it UBI.
Then end the Fed and fiat currency (Score:2)
One of the less appreciated aspects of modern monetary policy is that cheap credit enables the wealthy to buy up housing like crazy. Got $1M? You're probably eligible for about $5M in mortgages if you want to start a small real estate empire. At 2.5-3.25%, if you lock in a ton of 30 year notes your numbers will be very good if you make even modest down payments.
The cheap credit has also pushed for the normalization of houses that would be considered upper class homes in the 50s and 60s. Back then, 1500 squa
Re: (Score:2)
...to poor local families... (Score:2)
...to poor local families...
Ah, so Americans are basically renaming welfare. It's only UBI when you also pay it to all the middle class families & individuals & millionaires/billionaires in the population too. Once you discriminate between recipients, then you have to introduce some form of means testing, & that incurs some high costs with all the bureaucracy involved, AKA the welfare system.
Alternatively, they could just start taxing the rich & corporate profits so that the money gets reinvested instead of being used
Not a solution (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't "transfer" poverty. If you take a small percentage of a rich person's wealth and give it to a poor person, the rich person is still rich, but the poor person is no longer poor.
You can certainly argue about the effectiveness or morality of redistribution of wealth, but you're not "transferring poverty."
interesting (Score:2)
Personally, I think that passing a modified version of Cotton's/Romney's min wage bill, Combined with some major changes to our higher educational funding, would do far far more for America and to help end poverty.
Re:What could possibly go wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
> Give $1000 a month to the stupid/feckless/criminal/drug users
But enough about tax cuts for the rich... let's talk about people working two jobs just to pay the rent, or subsisting on welfare programs they're at the risk of losing because they failed to meet some bonkers criteria that were needlessly punitive even when they was established 40 years ago...
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
This program is targeted at people living below the poverty line - they are eligible for any number of welfare/assistance programs and are not, typically, working two jobs to get by. Sure, there are some, and they deserve a break/hand-up, but don't, for a minute, try and pretend that that describes the majority (or even a significant percentage) of low-income people.
Curious about examples of what you consider "bonkers criteria" - most are nothing more than means-testing, and if that's an issue, lobby your e
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is a real problem. Our system seems designed to force people into and keep people in poverty. It's difficult to save, for example, as most programs count savings against qualification. You're expected to drain all of your savings before you apply for assistance. The idea is to avoid giving help to people who don't need it, but all it does is create new poor people and make it difficult for them to work their way out of poverty.
It's why people in section 8 housing seem to "waste" windfall money. (M
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, there are some, and they deserve a break/hand-up, but don't, for a minute, try and pretend that that describes the majority (or even a significant percentage) of low-income people.
Go on, enlighten us. What does describe the majority of low-income people?
Provide sources. Anecdotes will not be accepted as proof.
Re: (Score:2)
They have limited incomes.
I'll see myself out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What could possibly go wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
This program has the same flaws as all the others.
1. It is time-limited. No one is going to make life-changing decisions if they know the checks will stop coming in a year.
2. It is run by advocates rather than objective researchers, and is designed to reach a predetermined outcome.
3. It only measures the benefit to the recipient. It doesn't consider the negative consequences for those taxed to pay for it.
4. The recipients are compared to a control group who receive nothing. A more realistic test would be to compare UBI with spending the same $1000/month in other ways, such as job training and life-skills counseling. Of course, people are going to benefit if you throw money at them, but is UBI really the best way to do that?
Re: (Score:2)
The recipients are compared to a control group who receive nothing.
I saw no mention of a control group, I doubt they've identified 2,000 low-income families that will report their spending habits to them for absolutely no compensation/consideration.
Re: (Score:2)
report their spending habits to them for absolutely no compensation/consideration.
There an app for that.
A whole shitload of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, universal basic income is supposed to give the same amount of everybody. They should be giving $1000 a month to random people to all walks of life to see how it affects everyone. Giving people who don't struggle extra money might open up new jobs. Maybe they would pay someone to take care of their lawn or clean their house instead of doing it themselves. Maybe they would eat at more restaurants. Maybe they would just give it to a worthy charity. Maybe they will just horde it. But we won't know unle
Re: (Score:2)
As someone that doesn't need the money but also has a household income of under 100k, I would adjust my 401k saving to accommodate for the extra $1000 a month. I'll need that money in retirement when social security doesn't pay out as much.
Re: (Score:3)
As someone that doesn't need the money but also has a household income of under 100k,
Why do you assume you would be a net beneficiary? You would likely pay more in additional taxes than the benefit you receive.
Do you remember when Obama said the ACA would benefit "98% of all Americans and 99% of all plumbers?"
The original plan was to only tax the top 2%. It didn't work out that way.
The top 60% paid more to cover the bottom 40%. That may be acceptable, but it is not the way the program was sold.
UBI will work the same. Most people will pay more in taxes than they receive.
Re: (Score:2)
Why doesn't this study have people of different income levels? Because this study is not interested in the differences between those groups. They're only interested in how one specific group will use that extra income.
How different groups spend extra income is actually reasonably well-established. Higher income people will mostly save. Lower income people spend it quickly, typically paying down debt, rent, utilities, and food. We also know how it affects poor people psychologically. (They're happier an
Re: (Score:2)
This program has the same flaws as all the others.
#1: I don’t get shit from it
The others don’t really matter.
Hey how about those airline bailouts? Again!
Eh, it’s fine, I’m sure they appreciate it, and that appreciation will be shown with impeccable and courteous service. It’s not like they’re gonna drag people off airplanes.
When was the last time a poor person dragged you out of a seat you paid for?
What to do with extra "working" hours? (Score:2)
So what went wrong in your life to make you such a vindictive jackass? Actually, I think you (and people like you) are just projecting your own internal nastiness based on all the things that went wrong in your miserable life. I was going to re-Subject it as "Something always goes wrong", but your "thoughts" aren't worth that much consideration. I wonder what motivates your knee-jerk reactions. Except that there's insufficient reason to care about the details of your failures.
Now about the reason there is s
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I think you (and people like you) are just projecting your own internal nastiness based on all the things that went wrong in your miserable life.
Maybe that’s exactly the reason, aren’t you kind of an asshole for saying as much?
At least he’s consistent. For me, there’s nothing worse than someone who does the whole “why can’t you be caring and empathetic like me, go die in a fire!” thing.
I don’t even like the guy you’re replying to, but hypocri
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about that. Remember Popper's paradox of tolerance?
Re: (Score:3)
Stupid undeserving addicts. Don’t you just wish they’d exterminate them all and get it over with?
Same with dumb people.
And those without empathy.
And people who write anonymous cowardly screeds on the Internet.
I say we get rid of ‘em all.
Most people in poverty were born into it. Sucks to be them. If you lose the birth lottery, fuck you.
Who else should we tell that we aren’t helping because they’re flawed?
We should take the money we give to the poor and spend it in corporate we
Re: (Score:2)
and I'll be this project won't discriminate between the deserving poor and the crack addicts.
Who says it needs to? We've seen time and time again that trying to direct these funds to 'good people' costs more than the fraud.
Oh and poverty is an important variable with drug addiction, the simplistic tough-love approach has limited range.
An important question [Re:What could possibly...] (Score:2)
Give $1000 a month to the stupid/feckless/criminal/drug users.
Which brings up an important question: should a policy be judged by how well it helps the most worthy people? Or, by whether it can be misused by the least worthy people?
If a policy helps, say, a hundred people who do need help, and in the process gets homeless people off the street and takes some of the burden off of social services... but it also helps a dozen people who don't need it, and are taking advantage of the system... is it a good policy, for the people it helps, or is it a bad one, for the peop
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It's worse than that. This mayor *clearly* doesn't understand the UBI concept at all. UNIVERSAL basic income means you give it to EVERYBODY in your jurisdiction regardless of income. Then you raise taxes on the rich to suck it back out before it causes inflation.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Man, rich kids really suck. But an endless source of entertainment.
I hope UBI gets implemented... (Score:3, Informative)
...so I can raise rents by that same amount and make bank.
Re: (Score:3)
THIS.
The obvious outcome of any real UBI program is... inflation by exactly the UBI quantity. So why is not the FIRST thing any UBI program proponent explain how is it that it won't happen?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I think you've mixed Don Trump Jr. up with Hunter Biden...
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
If Hunter had $1,000 he'd spend it on crack and hookers, then write a book about it...
Re: What could possibly go wrong (Score:2)