|
Post by Sprockey on Oct 5, 2017 9:04:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by alicechalmers on Oct 5, 2017 9:07:32 GMT -5
I think it may be inevitable as automation increases and jobs for everyone simply don't exist. It'll be interesting to see how it works for Scotland.
|
|
|
Post by Tpatt100 on Oct 5, 2017 9:12:38 GMT -5
I think it’s a good idea but..... not everybody is going to like how it’s “supposed to work”. It’s supposed to eliminate a lot of government positions because the administrative load would decrease.
It also doesn’t mean nobody is “poor” either and some politicians will probably push for increases to get votes and then the whole thing falls apart
|
|
|
Post by TapToTalk on Oct 7, 2017 11:34:09 GMT -5
In theory, its a good idea. In practice, I wonder what would happen if we actually tried to shutdown all the different programs that make up the current welfare state and consolidate them into a single "basic income" payment. There'd be a lot of discussion on what that payment should be and what happens if someone doesn't budget that payment properly.
We'd also debate whether a minimum payment should require some minimum responsible in terms of some service to the government. If an able bodied single person should spend some time filling for needed community service work, for example.
Of course, we'd have a debate on whether one should be a citizen to receive the basic income payment and what to do about those who are undocumented.
Devil is always in the details.
|
|
|
Post by villanelle on Oct 8, 2017 3:31:07 GMT -5
As with so many things, I think it comes down to what society is willing to allow to happen without stepping in. When someone spends all their money, are we willing to let them starve and be thrown out on the street? Because surely, that will happen for some when they are just handed a check and not given help with rent, funds they can only spend on groceries, etc. What about when they have kids at home?
The reason we end up managing whether someone can buy Twinkies with government assistance is in part because we want to make sure they use their aid for it's intended purpose--to keep them healthy and at least minimally cared for. Until a society decides they are willing to leave people to their own devices, for better and for worse, and not sweep in with another layer of assistance when they first is squandered, I think basic income is a terrible idea.
|
|
|
Post by Tpatt100 on Oct 8, 2017 5:49:05 GMT -5
People end up on the streets every day even with the current administrative overhead. Food stamps provide just enough for the bare minimum. Remember when people try to do the “food stamp diet”? That is why we still have food banks and charities is because government assistance provides the bare minimum needed. Schools have to provide extra meals to students or they go hungry when school is out. I would rather eliminate all the administrative costs to increase the amount of aid provided because people are already starving or living on the streets anyways. The only people that are being helped eat properly and put a roof over their heads are all the people being paid to run the programs www.cnn.com/2017/06/09/health/champions-for-change-child-hunger-in-america/index.html“Why does America have so many hungry kids?”
|
|
|
Post by TapToTalk on Oct 8, 2017 18:53:42 GMT -5
That is why we still have food banks and charities is because government assistance provides the bare minimum needed. I would rather eliminate all the administrative costs to increase the amount of aid provided because people are already starving or living on the streets anyways. I agree with you. There has been and always will be the need for charities and private food donations; that need has been there forever. Let's get more money into the hands of the people who are needy and not people who shuffle the increasing amount of paperwork that DC demands.
|
|
|
Post by villanelle on Oct 8, 2017 20:27:56 GMT -5
To be clear, I'm not against this. I just think people need to be prepared for the consequences, some of which might be ugly. When there is no safety net to the safety net, and then there is no charity to step in, people are going to put themselves in some pretty awful situations, and society needs to be prepared to accept that as a consequence of this type of thing. But I think that allowing more money to get to those in need and less to be eaten up by program costs makes sense, and we shouldn't punish the responsible so as not to enable the irresponsible.
My only qualm is families with children. I'm not sure what the right answer is there. Do we take away the kids after the third time mommy and daddy spend all their universal income check on cigarettes and Monsters and can't pay rent or buy food? And if we do that, aren't we shifting additional bureaucracy to family services, cutting out a lot of the savings we were supposed to get from less bureaucracy? Would it be cheaper to continue a WIC style program for those with minors in their care?
|
|
|
Post by Tpatt100 on Oct 8, 2017 22:05:53 GMT -5
If somebody is going to spend their money on cigarettes instead of their children then odds are they were probably already trading cigarettes for stuff bought on their EBT card anyways. Children are already hungry we accepted that before this was even talked about what’s an extra million more hungry children gong to hurt (if that even happens). If over five million children are hungry “now” why would we have to prepare ourselves for a future “maybe”? www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/03_food_stamp_isaacs.pdf
|
|
|
Post by villanelle on Oct 9, 2017 1:03:54 GMT -5
Are you arguing with me? lol I can't tell. But if you are, I think we actually agree. I'm not against the program; I'm just pointing out a possible road block to public acceptance of it. I think that spending more money where it is needed most (though I suppose someone who works for SNAP or WIC would argue they need that job!) is the most responsible use of that money. But if we go this route, we need to actually have the stomach for the likely increase in people who can't afford the basics. For adults, I'm pretty okay with that. If they blow their chance, that's on them. Will the average Scot (or American, hypothetically) be okay with that? I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by Tpatt100 on Oct 9, 2017 5:47:46 GMT -5
Are you arguing with me? lol I can't tell. But if you are, I think we actually agree. I'm not against the program; I'm just pointing out a possible road block to public acceptance of it. I think that spending more money where it is needed most (though I suppose someone who works for SNAP or WIC would argue they need that job!) is the most responsible use of that money. But if we go this route, we need to actually have the stomach for the likely increase in people who can't afford the basics. For adults, I'm pretty okay with that. If they blow their chance, that's on them. Will the average Scot (or American, hypothetically) be okay with that? I don't know. We do actually have the stomach for it that is why I keep posting numbers of the already hungry adults and children. People tend to only think about these things when the proposal to take the leash off public assistance comes up. The hungry are all around us, we just don’t notice it.
|
|
|
Post by villanelle on Oct 9, 2017 6:24:55 GMT -5
I disagree that we have the stomach for it. Yes, we already have these people. No, I don't think most people are aware of that, or they are and that's why they support SNAP, WIC, etc. Right now, when someone says, "but the children!", we can point to programs meant to address that issue. Whether those programs are effective is almost beside the point. It's something--however flawed--so that people can at least check the mental "tried something" option.
I don't know enough about the Scots current welfare and entitlement program to say whether they have those programs currently, or whether they are effective. (Yes, I can google the number of hungry children in Scotland, but that doesn't tell me whether their programs are efficient or whether the problem would be much worse without them.) I also don't know enough about the Scots' ethos to know where they are likely to stand on that issue, so it will be interesting to see both wether this actually happens, and whether it is considered successful after a few years if it does--successful based on public opinion but also on the numbers of homeless and hungry adults and children.
|
|
|
Post by TapToTalk on Oct 9, 2017 9:19:50 GMT -5
If we replaced the food stamps dollar for dollar in the minimum income, why would more people/children go hungry?
|
|
mare
Full Member
Posts: 2,517
|
Post by mare on Oct 9, 2017 9:29:13 GMT -5
If we replaced the food stamps dollar for dollar in the minimum income, why would more people/children go hungry? Yes more people would go hungry. I know we don't like nanny states, but there's a reason giving out cash is not a good idea. I don't think many people would be responsible enough with the cash. Sad to say. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
|
|
|
Post by TapToTalk on Oct 9, 2017 9:49:45 GMT -5
At this point, EBT is on a debit card. Irresponsible people skirt the rules (as tpatt has pointed out many times). There is no reason that the same restrictions couldn't be put on the new unified basic income debit card. The fact that there aren't multiple bureaucracies monitoring it would improve the situation, not make it worse.
|
|
|
Post by Tpatt100 on Oct 9, 2017 9:56:05 GMT -5
|
|
mare
Full Member
Posts: 2,517
|
Post by mare on Oct 9, 2017 9:58:32 GMT -5
At this point, EBT is on a debit card. Irresponsible people skirt the rules (as tpatt has pointed out many times). There is no reason that the same restrictions couldn't be put on the new unified basic income debit card. The fact that there aren't multiple bureaucracies monitoring it would improve the situation, not make it worse. How would there not be multiple entities monitoring it? Someone has to do all that accounting and control access issues. Gotta pay your electric bill with your universal card? Someone has to interface with the government. Also, are there going to be some restrictions on what percentage of food, housing, etc that can be spent on each category? Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
|
|
|
Post by Tpatt100 on Oct 9, 2017 10:14:49 GMT -5
We shouldn't drug test welfare recipients because we should trust them but we should make sure they spend money given to them on food because we don't trust them.
|
|
mare
Full Member
Posts: 2,517
|
Post by mare on Oct 9, 2017 10:44:10 GMT -5
We shouldn't drug test welfare recipients because we should trust them but we should make sure they spend money given to them on food because we don't trust them. So what do you do when people are hungry because there is no accountability? "Sorry, you have to wait till next month!" That's the conundrum with either nannying or not. FWIW, I am not sure how I feel about this. I know giving people money with few restrictions doesn't work for a large chunk of people. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
|
|
|
Post by TapToTalk on Oct 9, 2017 11:27:22 GMT -5
Republicans: People on welfare need more accountability. Democrats: You people are heartless.
|
|