Recent searches
Search options
Do not confuse welfare with Universal Basic Income. If you get $1k in welfare does it make sense to take a $1k job, lose your welfare and end up with the same $1k? No.
If you get $1k UBI, does it make sense to take a $1k job and end up with $2k? Yes.
This is why so many pilots show increases in work.
@scottsantens Welfare that cuts off as soon as you have other income always seemed to me like it was clearly designed to trap people.
That being one of the frequent criticisms against government aid, you'd think they would have designed it not to do that.
...or, more cynically, they made sure that was in there, so they could always attack it on that basis.
(...which, in the light of recent House shenanigans about The Border Crisis™, seems entirely on-brand.)
@woozle @scottsantens In a smart system (…I know :/) it’d function on different tiers instead of getting cut off at a certain point, and the tiers wouldn’t be larger than one can afford to lose.
And not just income, as unmarried disabled people find, which is especially cruel.
...and how about a lag between gaining employment and cutting off assistance, too? It takes time to recover and build your reserves back up. [edited for wording & explanation]
(I'd do a smooth curve rather than tiers, just so people don't feel they have to avoid making more than X amount -- something like negative income tax.)
UBI seems like a better idea, though, if only because it's so much simpler and thereby less prone to political manipulation and administrative overhead costs.
@woozle @scottsantens That sounds doable, like a “Get on Your Feet” fund?
It could be a stepping stone to UBI, as it gets people used to the idea of standardized support, even when one has income.
@woozle @WhiteCatTamer @scottsantens Those tiers already result in smooth lines.
@woozle @WhiteCatTamer @scottsantens Most US means tested "safety net" programs phase out as income increases. While that does reduce the marginal gain from earnings, it isn't like the sharp cutoffs 50 years ago. The US also has a "negative income tax" in the form of the Earned Income Tax Credit. Conservatives used to love this, now they complain about how many people don't pay federal income tax.
Means tested programs are a pain to administer, UBI could be a lot more efficient.
@woozle @WhiteCatTamer @scottsantens Even in "even the liberal" New York state, the people I know that qualify for one or the other means-tested support program waste absurd amounts of time keep their eligibility up to date, or often they just give up. Means testing is how opponents of safety net programs sabotage them.
@dan131riley @WhiteCatTamer @scottsantens
As it happens, @Harena and I have a semi-RL friend in New York state who is on disability, but she only got it because a sympathetic caseworker walked her through the steps (which they apparently don't have to do, may not even be supposed to do, and typically don't have the time for because they're overworked and underpaid).
Apparently you have to be either highly functional or lucky in order to get disability, pretty much anywhere in the US.
Designed to fail, yep.
@dan131riley @WhiteCatTamer @scottsantens
My understanding of the EITC is that it's just a refund -- so it's only in effect if you make enough to pay income tax in the first place, and the amount you can "receive" (the refund of what you paid) goes down as the amount you pay decreases.
...whereas a negative income tax would start somewhere below the zero-income-tax level.
@woozle @WhiteCatTamer @scottsantens
US EITC is a refundable tax credit, not a refund.
"A refundable tax credit is one which, if the credit exceeds the taxes due, the government pays back to the taxpayer the difference. In other words, it makes possible a negative tax liability."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_credit#Refundable_vs._non-refundable
It is true that for the US EITC you need some income, but that's due to how the credit phases in and then out with income, see the graph at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_income_tax_credit#Graph,_2020
@dan131riley @WhiteCatTamer @scottsantens
...yes, I think that's basically what I said (going by the graph, anyway; the language is... unclear). You can't ever get back more than you put in.
@woozle @WhiteCatTamer @scottsantens
With a normal credit, you can't get back more than you put in. EITC is a refundable credit, if the credit exceeds the tax liability, the taxpayer can (and usually does) get a larger refund than what they put in.
If the ramp started with a positive credit at zero earned income, that would be a straight negative tax. The way it starts at zero and ramps up is supposed to encourage work by making the marginal gain from work more than 100% for low income.
@dan131riley @WhiteCatTamer @scottsantens
Well, I may be in a position to verify that this upcoming tax season -- if all goes well, I'll be earning taxable income, but definitely on the low side.
@scottsantens Instead of corrupt billionaire dollars and sense, lets try some common sense and see if that trickles up?!
It’s amazing how creative, productive and fulfilled people can be when the financial boot is off their neck. Intentional penury is how the monied class keeps us rabble in line.
@scottsantens Every time I think about this I imagine how much better all the shit jobs in the country will get overnight if every shitty-job worker in the country can suddenly tell their manager at Dollar General to fuck off if they don't get a fixed schedule that works with their childcare.
@scottsantens Yes. But to stop inflation it would be best to pay the UBI in energy units (kWh or Joule) as electric energy and fuel.
@scottsantens it also removes stress and the time about welfare worry etc.
@scottsantens Regardless of whether or not it increases or decreases work, it should be implemented. Also, less work will be required going forward to maintain the economy. Tax the shit out of the rich, for starters, and there will be plenty of money to go around. The protestant ethic is the road to ruin and we are getting much closer to ruin.
@scottsantens
UBI is a special form of that, what otherwise is called helicopter money. And the economical impact is the same.
In a very underconsuming society/economy, that also lacks currency in circulation, UBI and other helucopter money will do a good job.
But, by no way, UBI can replace social security systems, that help out of economical disparity.
Market does not fit needs, they fit to demand. Nobody will build a house to rent, when that will result in falling rents.
Three weeks after first payout of UBI, Procter&Gamble will rise price of their "Pampers" nappies to double.
In a capitalist driven society, there is no way out of "welfare" systems and charities.
@scottsantens Or in a bunch of states, get a 1k job, lose your 1800 in benefits and end up with 1k.
Like, some sort of sane taper off at the very least.
@scottsantens @MsHearthWitch I remember writing a paper about this in the late 80s / early 90s…. So obvious.
@scottsantens serious question: if my landlord knows, i will receive $1000 as UBI what will hinder the landlord to set the rent at that price, knowing everyone will have that money?
@scottsantens We have a "carer's allowance" system for unpaid carers; they get ~£82 a week, provided they don't earn more than £151 a week. If they go over that limit, they lose all the allowance, sometimes backdated for years (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/may/16/mps-urge-government-to-overhaul-unpaid-carer-benefits-without-delay). Neither figure, nor their sum, is enough to live on!
@scottsantens nodds in agreement
Because when people have their basic needs met, they'll be more free to do things that ain't monetarily rewarded but socially and personally...