Universal basic income may be adopted in Scotland

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.

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.

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?”

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?

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.

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.

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

The new hungry: College-educated, middle-class cope with food insecurity

Maybe we should have all employers put part of our paychecks on debit cards that can only be used for groceries.

hilarity ensues

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.