Slashdot Mirror
The Case Against a Universal Basic Income (vox.com)
An anonymous Slashdot reader writes:
A prominent think tank founder argues that a Universal Basic Income is more likely to increase poverty than decrease it. Robert Greenstein, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, estimates just in the U.S. the cost would reach $3 trillion a year, "close to 100 percent of all tax revenue the federal government collects... A UBI that's financed primarily by tax increases would require the American people to accept a level of taxation that vastly exceeds anything in U.S. history..."
In a long interview with Vox, he warns that "If you have big, very expensive, and therefore highly politically unrealistic proposals, then I worry that people will look at them and say, 'Okay, we can do one or two pieces,' and too often the pieces that get selected out are pieces where a lot of the money goes to the middle or upper middle class... even UBI's staunchest supporters say we can get there in 15 to 20 years. I am totally not comfortable with any policy prescription that says we wait 15 to 20 years to deal with very deep poverty." He suggests instead focussing on the neediest people first, possibly by subsidizing jobs programs and making housing more affordable.
In a long interview with Vox, he warns that "If you have big, very expensive, and therefore highly politically unrealistic proposals, then I worry that people will look at them and say, 'Okay, we can do one or two pieces,' and too often the pieces that get selected out are pieces where a lot of the money goes to the middle or upper middle class... even UBI's staunchest supporters say we can get there in 15 to 20 years. I am totally not comfortable with any policy prescription that says we wait 15 to 20 years to deal with very deep poverty." He suggests instead focussing on the neediest people first, possibly by subsidizing jobs programs and making housing more affordable.
Exactly, that is the point. It will also point out the need for active economic controls enabling the poverty stricken to access funds at lower interest and save for training and healthcare to exit the conditions causing reduced income generation. UBI is literally "the" safety net, and funds are free to move in every way in the economy preventing the need for oversight bureaucracies and preventing the need for enforcement.
Because if you just top off people making less no one will do jobs worth less than that amount. You're pricing all low income jobs out of the economy. Those employers will be unable to pay enough to attract people. Whole industries will collapse, or the price of those goods will skyrocket.You have to let people work and still collect the income. An immediate dropoff at the income level is a bad idea because no one will work harder to earn over that amount. A better idea would be a phase out. Say, you get 80% if you make 1800, 60% if you make 2200, 40% if you make 2600, 20% if you make 3200, and nothing if you make over 3600
I'm pretty sure *you* can't do the math considering the drugs you must be taking.
Another consultant who stuck it out.
"We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
Interesting little factoid - about 100% of Federal receipts go straight to Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, welfare, and interest on the national debt. Cutting those other spending issues won't really do anything other than slow down how fast our debt is growing (over $100 billion a month so far, this fiscal year - about $1.22 trillion so far).
The Federal Government already spends all its receipts (and thus, about 70% of all its spending) on the bottom 50%. I guess we need to spend even more?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Social Security had a total administrative expenditure of .7% in 2014, the most recent year for which I could find statistics. https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS...
You obviously aren't doing it right. I only met the owner of the last I apartment I rented once in the eighteen years I lived there. All of my dealings were with a property management company. They collected the rent and took care of maintenance... eventually. And this wasn't some multi-million dollar building in a big city, but a converted furniture store/warehouse located in a small suburb of a rust belt city.
The county I lived in put their property tax info on the web, and you could look up any property and see how much taxes were paid on it, where the tax bill was sent, who owned it, and how much was paid for it for every transaction since they computerized their records. A search of the building I was living in showed that it last changed hands for the grand sum of $1, paid by the current owner to his father.
If you want to believe that most landlords are hard working schlubs like yourself, be my guest. I think a lot more are like the guy above; I'm damned sure Trump never had to unclog a toilet in his life!
It's not socialism. You really struggle with words, huh?
Also, the source of that quote is unknown, but it appears to be based on a 1951 article in a Labour magazine from London. So no, it wasn't written by anyone who lived under your idea of socialism. You also seem to struggle with facts... No wonder you always pop up spouting some demonstrable nonsense or misunderstanding.