UBI: Testing Proves It Doesn't Work

Pepper said:
Are you saying we shouldn't? That we should abandon our responsibilities to the rest of the world? Both could be done. With a will to do it, both can be done.
Click to expand...
What I'm saying is that we should take care of home first. We have too many people in this country who are starving, homeless, can't catch a break, denied public assistance because they make $1 too much a month (I know someone that happened with), etc., etc. but giving them more help is "too costly", "not in the budget" or if done, takes months of red tape, etc., etc. Children, seniors and vets are in that number. But it seems to me that as soon as the Ukraine and Israel ask for more millions/billions, they get it immediately. Perhaps you should tell the powers that be that "both can be done" because they are falling short when it comes to helping our citizens.

Update: Just read @Irishdude's last reply and it speaks to the point I made about helping our own being too costly, 😒
 

Irishdude said:
Hey Diva, UBI is just a theory. There is plenty more we could do here to help those in need. And it doesn't have to cost trillions.
Click to expand...
Ya know Irishdude I have always said that regular folks seem to have better ideas and solutions than the powers that be. Too bad you can't have a sit down with said powers. I'm interested to hear what your solutions would be.
 
IMO much of the aid to Israel, Ukraine, etc… is money that has already been spent.

Sending equipment, weapons, supplies, etc… is a way to freshen our defense inventory and creates American jobs to replace those items.

I’m not sold on UBI economics but it would be interesting to see what would happen if we did away with all other social programs like welfare, social security, unemployment insurance, child care tax credits, etc… and replaced it with a monthly government payment for every American and allow them to use it as they see fit to sink or swim.

My fear is that we would still have many problems and the need for additional programs would slowly creep in.

IMO maintaining existing social services slightly below the need and a bit difficult to obtain provides an incentive for many to keep hustling to make it on their own.
 
OneEyedDiva said:
Ya know Irishdude I have always said that regular folks seem to have better ideas and solutions than the powers that be. Too bad you can't have a sit down with said powers. I'm interested to hear what your solutions would be.
Click to expand...
Well, there is supposed to be about $250 billion of fraud, waste and abuse in the Federal budget. I would start with that. Every dollar identified would be directed to income supports for those who need it.
 
Irishdude said:
Well, there is supposed to be about $250 billion of fraud, waste and abuse in the Federal budget. I would start with that. Every dollar identified would be directed to income supports for those who need it.
Click to expand...
Yes, that would certainly be a good place to start. Also I don't think I gave you a proper welcome. Sooo...

Welcome To The Group Neon.jpg
 
Aunt Bea said:
IMO much of the aid to Israel, Ukraine, etc… is money that has already been spent.
Click to expand...

To state the obvious - war is financially lucrative. The military industrial complex is absolutely raking it in at the moment.

That and Ukraine. We have the military spend, but on top of that, there will be a lot of money to be made from rebuilding once the war is over. This is all already planned for.
 
That was proposed by one of the candidates in the 2020 primaries. I was astonished, because it seemed unrealistic and a sure way of not getting elected. I have no idea if it would work or not. I would not discount it on the grounds that I don't understand it. Putting more money in people's pockets would be good for the economy. So aside from just being a handout, there may be other benefits to the country we haven't thought of, possibly even benefits to Corporations and manufacturers. Although we don't want a bubble economy, which it might cause.
 
VaughanJB said:
To state the obvious - war is financially lucrative. The military industrial complex is absolutely raking it in at the moment.

That and Ukraine. We have the military spend, but on top of that, there will be a lot of money to be made from rebuilding once the war is over. This is all already planned for.
Click to expand...

The war hawks in Washington care less about dead Ukrainians than Putin does aside from using their deaths as promotional material for their proxy war.
 
Aunt Bea said:
IMO much of the aid to Israel, Ukraine, etc… is money that has already been spent.

Sending equipment, weapons, supplies, etc… is a way to freshen our defense inventory and creates American jobs to replace those items.

I’m not sold on UBI economics but it would be interesting to see what would happen if we did away with all other social programs like welfare, social security, unemployment insurance, child care tax credits, etc… and replaced it with a monthly government payment for every American and allow them to use it as they see fit to sink or swim.

My fear is that we would still have many problems and the need for additional programs would slowly creep in.

IMO maintaining existing social services slightly below the need and a bit difficult to obtain provides an incentive for many to keep hustling to make it on their own.
Click to expand...
I think something like UBI would have to be means tested. What would be the point of sending $1000 a month to someone who's making even $100,000 a year. It would hardly make a difference to that person, especially if he or she was married to someone who makes a similarly 'high' wage. But to someone making less than that, especially if it was below $75,000, that extra would be amazing.
 
Debrah N. said:
I think something like UBI would have to be means tested. What would be the point of sending $1000 a month to someone who's making even $100,000 a year. It would hardly make a difference to that person, especially if he or she was married to someone who makes a similarly 'high' wage. But to someone making less than that, especially if it was below $75,000, that extra would be amazing.
Click to expand...
I agree, although then you would have to call it something else because it would no longer be "universal." I think that cash, not in-kind payments like food stamps or housing allowances, is the most effective way to fight poverty.
 
Irishdude said:
I agree, although then you would have to call it something else because it would no longer be "universal." I think that cash, not in-kind payments like food stamps or housing allowances, is the most effective way to fight poverty.
Click to expand...
IMO money or services for basic support are of little lasting value unless the underlying issues that caused the poverty are addressed.

“Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime”
 
VaughanJB said:
They need to address pork barrel spending. The things that get added to non-related legislature to buy votes is a disgrace.
Click to expand...
I agree. And that adding things to bills that are completely unrelated makes me crazy! And that wars in which innocent civilians and troops are killed are perpetrated and perpetuated because they are lucrative is disgusting. :mad:

@Aunt Bea You said: "IMO money or services for basic support are of little lasting value unless the underlying issues that caused the poverty are addressed.
“Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime”

So true. I think that the educational system should teach better courses in basic finance and start early. In fact, the educational systems have failed many in poverty and people of color. I've seen this first hand in my city. Schools in districts that are predominantly Black and Hispanic hardly got funding for books and supplies while schools in predominantly White neighborhoods were getting new computers and adequate supplies.

Conditions in predominantly minority schools are also overcrowded. And assumptions are made about minority students, so the bar is set lower and some teachers don't teach to the levels of capability of these students. My son started out in a Catholic grammar school. The teacher said she didn't give homework because some students didn't have a place at home to do it. I told her my son does...please give him homework!

People shouldn't have to work 80 hours a week because they are getting ridiculous minimum wages that make it impossible to make ends meet.
I could go on...there's so much that needs to be addressed and corrected.
 
Last edited:
Setting aside the politcs/how will it be paid for after seeing/observing what many individuals did with those cadillac unemployment benefits they got during the apocalypse I say no.

Saw too many riding out their claims to their expiration dates long after things opened up and could go back to or find work. People need incentive and/or become creatures of habit and potential employers would wonder could that applicant stay in the job. Same for those on UBI. It could condemn or limit many in any attempt to not use or need it.
 
Irishdude said:
Truly universal UBI would cost about $3.5 trillion annually in the U.S. if we gave everybody $1000 per month. The current deficit is $1.8 trillion. Total tax revenue is about $4.4 trillion per year. I'm having a hard time reconciling these numbers. Even a massive tax increase (politically unthinkable btw) could only raise another trillion or so.
Click to expand...
I don't mean to be picky re the point you're making, but... How is the figure calculated? Does it assume that everyone would want to receive his/her $1K? Many people are proudly "decently employed" (or even more affluent) and might very well choose to decline. But secondly, I'm sure that no system would bestow that $1K on citizens below some age like 18 or 21— so does this figure take eligible age into account?
 
I thought part of the dream behind UBI was that people would use it as an income cushion to give them breathing space to improve their employability and thus "get ahead."

So far none of the experiments have shown such outcomes. People just used it to avoid working or blew it on frivolities. Where poverty was extreme it just helped make up for a lack of income opportunity based on choice of residence. You could eke by on a mountaintop, in the woods, or in a depressed inner-city neighborhood at a subsistence level.

On a large scale UBI seems to inevitably result in inflation. Prices rise across the economy until those trying to get by on UBI (or UBI plus a high schooler's job) are as bad off as before but even more deeply trapped now.

On a large scale where would the UBI be drawn from anyway? Sure, in little experiments you can rob all of their neighbors at low enough levels that nobody screams too loud. But across an entire country? Once we're all on welfare who is paying that bill?
 
JBR said:
I don't mean to be picky re the point you're making, but... How is the figure calculated? Does it assume that everyone would want to receive his/her $1K? Many people are proudly "decently employed" (or even more affluent) and might very well choose to decline. But secondly, I'm sure that no system would bestow that $1K on citizens below some age like 18 or 21— so does this figure take eligible age into account?
Click to expand...
It's Universal Basic Income, so everybody gets it. If it's not universal, costs go down quickly.

This is from Scientific American:

In addition to the belief that people will quit their jobs under a basic income, the idea faces another hurdle: apparent cost. A basic income of $1,000/month for every person in the U.S. would have a gross cost of about $4 trillion a year. A means-tested minimum income guarantee, which phases out as earned income increases above a threshold, could raise incomes by the same amount for perhaps one sixth of the gross cost of a basic income. However, the net cost to the taxpayers is no greater for basic income than for a means-tested minimum income, because the higher taxes some will pay are offset by the basic income they receive.

To the extent that the mere fact of “churning”—money going out to everyone, only to be taken back in taxes from some—is an obstacle to political support, the means-tested guaranteed income may be the more politically feasible policy, but it would lose some of the advantages of universal programs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JBR
IMO the biggest problem with UBI is inflation.

Similar to when we raise the minimum wage, prices for everything rise in part to support the increased expense and partly to absorb the additional income.

In a year of two we are back where we started, only the numbers have increased.

I believe that the only path out of poverty is education and experience that will allow a person to command a decent wage. The other side of that coin is the personal discipline and knowledge to manage that wage.

I agree with @OneEyedDiva ’s comments about the public education system.

When I was young public education was mainly funded through local property taxes and some school districts were willing to support quality schools while others were either unable or unwilling to make education a priority.

Today most of the money comes down from the state government with the idea that all kids receive the opportunity to receive a quality education. I don’t see that happening in my area, we still have crumbling city schools and upscale suburban schools. Why shouldn’t it simply be a set dollar amount per child regardless of where they happen to live. I also believe that all basic costs for meals, supplies, etc… be included in the basic school budget so that all kids have an equal public school experience.
 
Aunt Bea said:
Why shouldn’t it simply be a set dollar amount per child regardless of where they happen to live. I also believe that all basic costs for meals, supplies, etc… be included in the basic school budget so that all kids have an equal public school experience.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't it be nice... if that worked?

Doesn't seem to here. A good deal of school tax revenue gets laundered and re-doled by the State now. Even when that leaves pots of money locally, we've had "schools of choice" for a very long time now.

Ultimately that's meant that "rich" districts "got richer." Not only having their bigger local pots but as some students "migrate in" virtually "by choice" it increases redistribution of funds through the State from other districts.

Along the way it has eroded much of the sense of community local districts once fostered. Schools became more faceless and now Boards have become training grounds for national party candidates who receive substantial campaign aid from national and State Party machines. Without pledging fealty to a Party it is nearly impossible to get onto a school board now.

And none of it addresses the role of home life and parenting in children's lives and their education. Worse yet there is a continued growth in single-parenting by working mothers and a lot of live-in "baby daddy du jour" making little contribution to home life or actively harming kids.

We look more like Eastern Europe behind the Iron Curtain every day. Trying to transform schools into factory farms for children isn't the answer.

Teaching aimed at the bottom half of the Bell Curve isn't helping either. I suspect that's a bigger factor than money is at all. If they pulled that stunt with "sports" (bread and circuses) in schools, society would be up in arms! Why do we allow it for the things kids are nominally actually in school for?
 
School spending isn't the problem. Where I live, the City of Richmond spends about $17000 per pupil and gets terrible outcomes. Surrounding counties spend less (e.g. 14500 in my county) and get much better results. The city schools and particularly the central offices pay lots of people to "administer" the schools; these people imho do little or nothing and are paid very well for it.

Of course a major determinant of success in school is home life, parents' attitude to education, etc. but I don't know how you fix that through the school itself. Motivated parents won't tolerate bad schools; they will either "vote with their feet" or take steps to fix the problems.
 
I can't find figures for Richmond, but in Illinois, public school administrative staff has increased by 70% while enrollment has fallen by 5% since 1998.
 
I've always been suspicious of the "Rob Peter to educate Pauls' kids" answer.

I feel that's the kind of thing the wealthy used to drain the resources of middle and working classes and convince them the shame was their own.

I was bussed in to an inner city high school, inner city kids got bussed out to "our" schools. It accomplished little besides undermining communities by shuffling kids all over. Maybe if suburbs had been added to the mix it might have been different?
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top