WingNews logo WingNews
top | item 46890457

(no title)

hmry | 26 days ago

Feb 1: receive monthly paycheck Feb 2: spend all of it on strippers/drugs/alcohol/twinkies/etc. Feb 3: I'm hungry.

Unless you are prepared to let the wagies starve to death, wages will never work.

Or to put it in less sarcastic terms: Why would UBI payments be more likely to be squandered than any other monthly payments? Especially by people who can't afford food without it. Are there any studies that show such behavior?

discuss

order

renewiltord|26 days ago

I suppose the difference is that we have a means-tested program which the wagies can fall into. Was the proposal to have a UBI with a means-tested program behind it? I thought most UBI proponents count on turning off the means-tested program in order to fund the UBI program.

At $1k/month for 340m people, we will double social welfare spending per capita if we don't turn off the existing programs. That will put the US at the tippy-top of per-capita spending above even Luxembourg. Fascinating.

hmry|26 days ago

Hmm, means-tested program behind UBI would mean you get more money if UBI is not enough, right? I have heard some arguments in favor of that, for example for disabled people. You are right that those programs need to be a lot smaller and simpler to be worth the bureaucracy. But I doubt "I spent it all on prostitutes" would qualify you for that.

Other UBI advocates don't want any additional program like that. I think healthcare would need to change a lot to make that viable.

Or if you mean spending restrictions like those that exist for food stamps, then yeah, UBI usually means getting rid of those. So the argument there would be "people who are on food stamps instead of a job are idiots (sic) / too irresponsible to spend it wisely, so we must control what they spend it on", which is one of the foundational ideas that UBI advocates disagree with.

some_furry|26 days ago

EDIT: Wow, I misread.

hmry|26 days ago

> in reply to your downvoted post

Huh? My post? It's not.