Universal Basic Income / UBI / Freedom Div. - we should talk about this.

[riverwed070707]

Agree with DS and also why focus on the handful who might abuse (that happens in the current system) and ignore the hundreds of thousands it will help? Further, what if that payment got someone who otherwise wouldn’t have the means to see and end and to go to rehab? Someone who is an addict isn’t any less deserving of that Payment than a CEO. Their MENTAL HEALTH condition doesn’t define them and the person they might become. It’s like the argument for drug testing to receive food stamps - the cost to test would far outweigh the money saved from the few who that would be kicked out of the system.

[disneysteve]

It’s like the argument for drug testing to receive food stamps - the cost to test would far outweigh the money saved from the few who that would be kicked out of the system.

Plus it conveniently ignores the fact that people with addiction issues also need to eat as do their families. If you deny food stamps to someone because they fail a drug test, that means their kids go hungry too.

The same goes for UBI. Someone with an addiction still needs to pay rent, put gas in their car, pay utility bills, buy clothing, etc. The vast majority of people with addictions do not spend every penny they have on drugs. They have lives and expenses just like everyone else. The less they struggle with poverty, the more likely they are to be able to do something positive about addressing their medical and mental health issues.

[kork13]

FWIW, Alaska has a small comparable to the UBI concept in the Permanent Fund Dividend (a.k.a. the "Thanks for letting oil companies rape & pillage the Alaskan tundra & waters" fund). Every Alaskan man/woman/child meeting a variety of residency requirements receives $1k-$2k per year from the PFD investment accounts' growth/dividends.

A study from the University of Alaska found, among other things, that even that fairly small annual payment was sufficient to raise 3% of the state's population out of poverty. Speaking anecdotally, it also provides a huge economic boost as well -- "PFD season" features a slew of companies competing for those PFD dollars, and they generally succeed quite well. Many companies rely heavily on income from PFD season, and some may budget half the years' income within the 2-ish months that most PFD payments are distributed.

I'm not violently opposed to the idea of a UBI, so long as it actually replaces all of the various social welfare programs currently draining the coffers. I'd be very aggressive with it -- everything from SNAP & WIC to even Social Security.

[LivingAlmostLarge]

i would support it if it streamline the social welfare programs. And boy maybe we need it now rather than later. I wonder how soon it will become a talking point.

[disneysteve]

even that fairly small annual payment was sufficient to raise 3% of the state's population out of poverty.

Exactly. So just $1,000/year got 3% of the population out of poverty. Imagine what $1,000/month would accomplish.

I'm not violently opposed to the idea of a UBI, so long as it actually replaces all of the various social welfare programs currently draining the coffers. I'd be very aggressive with it -- everything from SNAP & WIC to even Social Security.

It should only replace entitlement programs. SS is not an entitlement program. It is a deferred annuity that I and my employers have been funding for over 35 years. So no, it should not replace that.

[kork13]

Exactly. So just $1,000/year got 3% of the population out of poverty. Imagine what $1,000/month would accomplish.

Actually the year of that study (2015) was a record high $2050-ish per person.... But yes, you get the idea.

It should only replace entitlement programs. SS is not an entitlement program. It is a deferred annuity that I and my employers have been funding for over 35 years. So no, it should not replace that.

I truly hate the use of the word "entitlements" when referring to social welfare programs.... Maybe just that I have people feeling entitled to anything...

My point is that why could UBI not replace SS as well? I mean, is SS so well-administered that you want to try to save it somehow to keep it around? Because we all know the program is floundering. If one of the selling points of UBI is reducing administrative bloat & simplifying the many diverse programs for the Gov't handing out cash to people, why not extend it to SS? It could simply be that at age 65 or whatever, your UBI automatically increases to $3000/mo, or something of the sort. Eliminate the bureaucracy of tracking incomes and all the rest, and just use it as intended -- one leg of a plan to ensure retirees aren't eating dogfood. It'll all mean significantly increased taxes anyway, so why not just roll the SS contributions into those taxes. I mean, if we're gonna get radical with a UBI, why not shoot the moon? Besides, I think if there country is to accept UBI, it's got to be something everyone sees as beneficial... Such a construct could restructure SS enough to protect it in concept, if not in name.

[disneysteve]

It could simply be that at age 65 or whatever, your UBI automatically increases to $3000/mo, or something of the sort.

Maybe, but the simplicity of UBI is that everyone gets the same amount every month. SS is income-based so doesn't fit that model. It wouldn't work to give everyone the same amount for SS when some people paid in way more over their career than others. As I said, SS is essentially an annuity. If you bought a 100K annuity and I bought a $1 million annuity, we shouldn't get the same payout.

[kork13]

Maybe, but the simplicity of UBI is that everyone gets the same amount every month. SS is income-based so doesn't fit that model. It wouldn't work to give everyone the same amount for SS when some people paid in way more over their career than others. As I said, SS is essentially an annuity. If you bought a 100K annuity and I bought a $1 million annuity, we shouldn't get the same payout.

But that's what I'm saying. Change SS such that it's not income-based (and in fact eliminate SS entirely), and roll that money into UBI with a provision to increase the payout to retirees at a specific age, with everyone receiving a specified dollar amount. Instead of paying into a horrifically-managed annuity, individuals & businesses are all taxed to cover the overall costs of UBI, which includes the retirement bump. It meets the SS program's intent of providing for retirees, but by leveling the payments & getting rolled into the larger UBI, you can simplify SS while resolving the crisis of restructuring the program before it runs out of money.

Not saying that's the answer... simply an opinion about how the country could accomplish both ends, and perhaps actually win approval of both by tying their fates together.

[disneysteve]

But that's what I'm saying. Change SS such that it's not income-based (and in fact eliminate SS entirely), and roll that money into UBI with a provision to increase the payout to retirees at a specific age, with everyone receiving a specified dollar amount.

I wouldn't be opposed to that, but that would take decades to roll out. You can't suddenly cut off everyone currently getting benefits. You can't suddenly change the system for all of the people who have been paying into the current system for decades. You would have to make that the new system for folks entering the workforce now, but keep the existing system for everyone already in it. I think that would be okay. Of course, if the new payment would meet or exceed the SS benefits you are due to receive, then you could switch to that. That would trim the SS ranks much faster, but nobody should have the benefits cut as a result of the new system.

[kork13]

if the new payment would meet or exceed the SS benefits you are due to receive, then you could switch to that. That would trim the SS ranks much faster, but nobody should have the benefits cut as a result of the new system.

That's generally what I'm talking about. I don't know exactly what SS generally pays out, but I'm guesstimating that it averages around ~$2000 per retiree? So I'd just roll roughly that amount as an add-on amount to the UBI payment for folks their age. Say $1k/mo <65y/o, $3k/mo 65y/o+. That would incorporate most people's SS payment completely, and even increase the amount received by many/most. The maximum SS payment for someone at full retirement age is currently $3,011 ($3,790 by starting at 70), and that's only if your income maxed out the benefit (which presumably, most people did not).

I don't think such a slow rollout would be required to ensure that no one's check from the government gets reduced significantly. But even if it did become necessary, I'd keep the phase-in to no more than 5 years, and slowly (say, $100/mo change per year) adjust retirees' payments to match. Is that perfectly fair? No. But as with any social welfare program, it's never 100% fair. Besides, the entire idea is that UBI serves to support a minimum standard of living for everyone. The only people who would possibly see a reduction in their payment would be from the higher range of the income spectrum (~$140k+), who presumably also have 401k & other savings to provide for their basic living expenses. So they're not going to be impoverished by a slight reduction in their gov't payments.

To be clear, I'm not saying this is the best way to go, simply an option/my opinion. I think that if UBI gains popularity, the country could simplify alot of bureaucratic processes by wrapping up as many programs as possible into the UBI umbrella.

[amarowsky]

FWIW, Alaska has a small comparable to the UBI concept in the Permanent Fund Dividend (a.k.a. the "Thanks for letting oil companies rape & pillage the Alaskan tundra & waters" fund). Every Alaskan man/woman/child meeting a variety of residency requirements receives $1k-$2k per year from the PFD investment accounts' growth/dividends.

A study from the University of Alaska found, among other things, that even that fairly small annual payment was sufficient to raise 3% of the state's population out of poverty. Speaking anecdotally, it also provides a huge economic boost as well -- "PFD season" features a slew of companies competing for those PFD dollars, and they generally succeed quite well. Many companies rely heavily on income from PFD season, and some may budget half the years' income within the 2-ish months that most PFD payments are distributed.

I'm not violently opposed to the idea of a UBI, so long as it actually replaces all of the various social welfare programs currently draining the coffers. I'd be very aggressive with it -- everything from SNAP & WIC to even Social Security.

Good point to highlight. The reduction in poverty from the Alaskan Trust = 3%.

I remembered hearing a similar and much more influential statistic, basically the above in regards to elderly poverty from social security. From it’s inception it moved elderly poverty from ~ >50% —> 16%. (For this use, please disregard the method that SS is funded, as UBI has different funding methods + cannabalizing majority of current welfare programs). Here’s the article I found to support this, https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2018/09/wh...ave-on-poverty, although I should mention, that I had initially heard the statistic from a podcast (don’t recall who exactly).

I think a huge point to consider as well, this will put a massive “Floor” on our economy for consumption. If all the statistics we hear are accurate and some ~50% of Americans life check-to-check. You can almost guarantee that their spending will not change, so keep in mind that >50% of this “UBI” will immediately be thrown back into the USA Economy’s blast furnace of consumption.

I think, agruably, the most valuable part of implementing UBI. Is to help motivate, support, and reward our mothers and @ home caretakers. Right now the only way they can contribute economically, is through their consumption of other money that is given to them (by provider, inheritance, or other). If taking care of people is their job/career, I think we should reward them. As they are creating the new consumers that will keep this economy going.

ANother point I really liked about the UBI. Is it helps funnel some money away from the coasts. Because all high income is basically focused around East coast or Cali. This would allow all of those middle of the country towns, that exist with no tourism, but still have some populations. (Think like old highway towns, or places in very rural areas like Montana, Kansas, Arkansas, Dakotas, Wyoming, etc...). There are plenty of people there to consume, but there is partially no one moving here. BEcause most of these motivated youngsters seem to only be chasing higher income by moving to the already SUPER dense coasts. Yet we (all USA people) need these small towns in some fashion. You would want to have distribution throughout the states. It would be very wasteful to let these towns go to waste... Sure 1000 per month won’t get you a whole lot on the coasts. But in small towns 1k will get you a TON. I live in michigan near Detroit, and it;s CRAZY cheap here compared to the coasts. 1k a month will get you a 1500 sq foot home in metro Detroit, or a LOT more if you drive north 2 -7 hours in michigan (probably 2k + sq ft).

In my opinion, this is worth testing. As it seems like a better way to go than the current patchwork welfare systems. And this would have some impact on EVERYONE in the states. Just don’t see it happening, as we have only corporate politicians in office now. Seems like very low chance for USA to tryout a “trickle up economy”. I feel it would be worth the risk to try this out in America for a little while. Keeping things as is, are clearly not ideal. And moving everyone into more tense state of living than we probably ought to be.... considering all we have here.

[riverwed070707]

In my opinion, this is worth testing. As it seems like a better way to go than the current patchwork welfare systems. And this would have some impact on EVERYONE in the states. Just don’t see it happening, as we have only corporate politicians in office now. Seems like very low chance for USA to tryout a “trickle up economy”. I feel it would be worth the risk to try this out in America for a little while. Keeping things as is, are clearly not ideal. And moving everyone into more tense state of living than we probably ought to be.... considering all we have here.

I love the term trickle up economy! I've heard it a few times and it just really resonates and makes sense to me. If trickle down economics worked, we would not have a minimum wage that does not keep up with inflation and we now have a wage gap that is almost an insurmountable problem, that certainly can't be fixed by just boosting the income of the lowest earners. How can we have corporations with CEOs getting multi-million dollar bonuses when we're still hiring on new FTEs with college degrees or skilled apprentice training at $30k/year? Nearly double the minimum wage but barely/not enough to live on in in the US.

[bjl584]

In my opinion, this is worth testing. As it seems like a better way to go than the current patchwork welfare systems. And this would have some impact on EVERYONE in the states. Just don’t see it happening, as we have only corporate politicians in office now. Seems like very low chance for USA to tryout a “trickle up economy”. I feel it would be worth the risk to try this out in America for a little while. Keeping things as is, are clearly not ideal. And moving everyone into more tense state of living than we probably ought to be.... considering all we have here.

Ronald Reagan Quotes
No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!

That is probably the thing that will prevent any sort of "test" to this.
Once people get their hands in it and start getting money, votes, and power from it, then it will never go away whether it works or not.