• Kurzgesagt - Universal Basic Income Explained – Free Money for Everybody?
    54 replies, posted
[video=youtube;kl39KHS07Xc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kl39KHS07Xc[/video]
One thing they forgot to mention: eradicating poverty would also lower healthcare costs, there would be less crime thus less police spending, better results in schools, etc. One prominent basic income advocate, Rutger Bregman, once said it costs more to keep poverty around than to eradicate it.
I don't think it's remotely a panacea, but anything that addresses the problems that the welfare model might face is good in my book.
Christ, the amount of people saying this is Communism or big government trying to control you in the comments is disgusting.
[QUOTE=zupadupazupadude;52954260]One thing they forgot to mention: eradicating poverty would also lower healthcare costs, there would be less crime thus less police spending, better results in schools, etc. One prominent basic income advocate, Rutger Bregman, once said it costs more to keep poverty around than to eradicate it.[/QUOTE] I can see it shrink criminality quite a lot, but how would it help cut healthcare costs?
[QUOTE=Rixxz2;52954555]I can see it shrink criminality quite a lot, but how would it help cut healthcare costs?[/QUOTE] Poor people are often unhealthier. They smoke more, eat more unhealthy food, etc. In the long term it would decrease the amount of people who need a lot of healthcare due to that
[QUOTE=CertainDOOM;52954486]Christ, the amount of people saying this is Communism or big government trying to control you in the comments is disgusting.[/QUOTE] The USA self perpetuates a bunch of fucked up definitions for communism and socialism and more are coming up all the time. You can look at fp user Trilby Harlow for an example. It's weird and funny when the provided definition is basically a synopsis of 1984.
[QUOTE=Rixxz2;52954555]I can see it shrink criminality quite a lot, but how would it help cut healthcare costs?[/QUOTE] poor people usually ignore health problems while they're cheap and not severe until the problems get expensive and hard to solve
[QUOTE=Judas;52954755]poor people usually ignore health problems while they're cheap and not severe until the problems get expensive and hard to solve[/QUOTE] Or more to the fact that even most basic healthcare procedures are prohibitively expensive for most under the poverty line. UBI wouldn't solve high healthcare costs (which is a whole 'nother can of worms with different solutions such as more regulation, more regulated private insurances, etc), but would just lift the economic burden off of those less able.
[QUOTE=LoneWolf_Recon;52954857]Or more to the fact that even most basic healthcare procedures are prohibitively expensive for most under the poverty line. UBI wouldn't solve high healthcare costs (which is a whole 'nother can of worms with different solutions such as more regulation, more regulated private insurances, etc), but would just lift the economic burden off of those less able.[/QUOTE] It wouldn't solve America's high healthcare spending entirely, sure. But we're trying to say it would lower healthcare spending, because fewer people would need healthcare in the first place due to making fewer unhealthy lifestyle choices.
[QUOTE=zupadupazupadude;52954884]It wouldn't solve America's high healthcare spending entirely, sure. But we're trying to say it would lower healthcare spending, because fewer people would need healthcare in the first place due to making fewer unhealthy lifestyle choices.[/QUOTE] Ah then yeah I see the argument, true. In some ways if people had less pressure to work two jobs just to make ends meet, that would not only remove a hell of alot of stress (usual big factor towards any given number of health problems) but would also encourage better eating and sleeping. (i.e. Instead of just eating frozen pizza every night, they can spend more time cooking healthier options).
[QUOTE=CertainDOOM;52954486]Christ, the amount of people saying this is Communism or big government trying to control you in the comments is disgusting.[/QUOTE] Big government and/or populists being able to control and manipulate the population with UBI is a legitimate concern, Kurzgesagt even mentioned the possibility in the video
Holy shit that comment section is awful
UBI is fine, but I find it pretty annoying when people try to sell it as a silver bullet over welfare. There is one main benefit of UBI over targeted welfare, and it's that welfare traps become much more difficult to create. A [URL="http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/11/poverty-trap.html"]welfare trap[/URL] is essentially a situation where getting a job is discouraged, because the welfare one would lose means that the gain from getting a job is very small, or even negative! This discourages work. Although this can be dealt with too by not screwing up your welfare schemes. Anything else seems to be largely over-hyped based on the evidence. For example the health stuff mentioned in this thread, that applies to just reducing poverty in general and can be achieved by standard welfare.
The visuals are very well done and appealing.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52956677]UBI is fine, but I find it pretty annoying when people try to sell it as a silver bullet over welfare. There is one main benefit of UBI over targeted welfare, and it's that welfare traps become much more difficult to create. A [URL="http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/11/poverty-trap.html"]welfare trap[/URL] is essentially a situation where getting a job is discouraged, because the welfare one would lose means that the gain from getting a job is very small, or even negative! This discourages work. Although this can be dealt with too by not screwing up your welfare schemes. Anything else seems to be largely over-hyped based on the evidence. For example the health stuff mentioned in this thread, that applies to just reducing poverty in general and can be achieved by standard welfare.[/QUOTE] But what's the benefit of having targeted welfare over UBI or UBI achieved through negative income tax? UBI theoretically eradicates poverty entirely.
[QUOTE=zupadupazupadude;52958583]But what's the benefit of having targeted welfare over UBI or UBI achieved through negative income tax? UBI theoretically eradicates poverty entirely.[/QUOTE] Targeted welfare can adjust for inequalities such as handicap, or other negative factors that people have absolutely no control over. It wouldn't be fair to give exactly the same amount to an able-bodied person and a handicapped one considering the latter has to finance a carer or special furnitures.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52958600]Targeted welfare can adjust for inequalities such as handicap, or other negative factors that people have absolutely no control over. It wouldn't be fair to give exactly the same amount to an able-bodied person and a handicapped one considering the latter has to finance a carer or special furnitures.[/QUOTE] I think most European advocates of Basic Income don't actually want that kind of targeted welfare to be abolished, though. I don't at least. What I'd like UBI to do is just replace the minimum welfare most European countries have and maybe a few income supplements that would then be redundant. The UBI should simplify a few welfare schemes, make them less depressing and more based on trust in my opinion, not replace the welfare state. [editline]8th December 2017[/editline] In the Netherlands there is a group of people who have a job, but are still below the poverty line, for example. There currently isn't much to help them. I think a UBI implemented via a negative income tax to raise their income to (and above, to give incentive to work) the poverty line would also support those people.
[QUOTE=zupadupazupadude;52958583]But what's the benefit of having targeted welfare over UBI or UBI achieved through negative income tax? UBI theoretically eradicates poverty entirely.[/QUOTE] I love the idea of a negative income tax in theory, but I don't think it will work in a political reality. For example, what happens to people who still end up in poverty (drug users, the mentally handicapped, gamblers, etc.)? They will still need targeted welfare unless you're going to allow them to starve. As we've seen over the past 50 years, spending money on welfare doesn't get rid of poverty. You just end up spending more and more on it as time goes on... seemingly into perpetuity. You also have the issue with the UBI becoming a political issue. Running on raising the UBI will be an easy path to victory as more and more people utilize it.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52958820]As we've seen over the past 50 years, spending money on welfare doesn't get rid of poverty. You just end up spending more and more on it as time goes on... seemingly into perpetuity.[/QUOTE] If you're referring to the US this is more of a testament to your country being unfair as fuck when it comes to inequalities. When you can go bankrupt by breaking your leg it's no wonder welfare programs (which are lackluster compared to other developed countries to say the least) don't suffice to eradicate poverty. In other countries you can also have the welfare trap phenomenon which, as the video demonstrated, UBI would get rid of.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52958868]If you're referring to the US this is more of a testament to your country being unfair as fuck when it comes to inequalities. When you can go bankrupt by breaking your leg it's no wonder welfare programs (which are lackluster compared to other developed countries to say the least) don't suffice to eradicate poverty. In other countries you can also have the welfare trap phenomenon which, as the video demonstrated, UBI would get rid of.[/QUOTE] That's a nice zinger, but medical costs don't come anywhere close to explaining the majority of poverty. It isn't even clear that those covered under Medicaid have noticeably higher health outcomes than the uninsured.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52958820]I love the idea of a negative income tax in theory, but I don't think it will work in a political reality. For example, what happens to people who still end up in poverty (drug users, the mentally handicapped, gamblers, etc.)? They will still need targeted welfare unless you're going to allow them to starve.[/quote] UBI and targeted welfare aren't incompatible, you can still have both (along with rehab facilities, gambling addiction therapies, and mental healthcare) [Quote]You also have the issue with the UBI becoming a political issue. Running on raising the UBI will be an easy path to victory as more and more people utilize it.[/QUOTE] So, just like running on lowering taxes? [editline]8th December 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;52958879]That's a nice zinger, but medical costs don't come anywhere close to explaining the majority of poverty.[/QUOTE] You should probably come up with a better explanation then, because other countries have made their homework way better than you guys. Poverty isn't as big a problem in other developed nations, and you're one of the countries with the highest GDP per capita! Medical costs are only an example. The US is riddled with anti-poor systems and when conservatives always have to be dragged kicking and screaming into anything resembling social-oriented measures is it really that much of a surprise? Saying that "welfare doesn't help in the slightest to end poverty" is an incorrect statement, and a dishonest one when you don't have any substantial alternative to propose.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52958881]UBI and targeted welfare aren't incompatible, you can still have both (along with rehab facilities, gambling addiction therapies, and mental healthcare) So, just like running on lowering taxes?[/QUOTE] Yes, just like running on lower taxes, but with one big difference: One is about government income and the other is about government spending. Taxes are changed all the time. Basically every time there's a party change, taxes are moved, sometimes by a lot. On the other hand, welfare expenditures are almost never decreased. Once established, they only increase over time. A UBI would quickly becomes just another unsustainable mess.
So, to review: Taxes changes all the time [often in a negative way] so that's fine that people run on it. Welfare changes all the time in a positive way so that's fine that people run on it. And only one of those is an unsustainable mess? E: No, even further, that you think that constantly lowering taxes has less impact than increasing welfare?
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52958897]So, to review: Taxes changes all the time [often in a negative way] so that's fine that people run on it. Welfare changes all the time in a positive way so that's fine that people run on it. And only one of those is an unsustainable mess? E: No, even further, that you think that constantly lowering taxes has less impact than increasing welfare?[/QUOTE] Taxes can be raised to compensate for deficits, welfare can almost never be cut to do the same (See our current predicament with Medicare and Social Security. They are set to totally destroy our entire budget within the next few decades, but no one is willing to do much of anything about it.) [editline]8th December 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=_Axel;52958881]Saying that "welfare doesn't help in the slightest to end poverty" is an incorrect statement, and a dishonest one when you don't have any substantial alternative to propose.[/QUOTE] It's a good thing I never said that, then! Welfare can help end an absolute level of poverty, but that isn't how we measure poverty. We look at it as a relative, and moving, number that follows the average wealth of society. The poor of today are far richer than the poor of 50 years ago when looking at an absolute level of wealth, but we still consider them in "poverty," just like we did the guy 50 years ago, even though their situations are far different.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52958892]Yes, just like running on lower taxes, but with one big difference: One is about government income and the other is about government spending. Taxes are changed all the time. Basically every time there's a party change, taxes are moved, sometimes by a lot. On the other hand, welfare expenditures are almost never decreased. Once established, they only increase over time.[/quote] I think we've already established that UBI and welfare are two distinct concepts? [Quote]A UBI would quickly becomes just another unsustainable mess.[/QUOTE] If you want to see an unsustainable mess, look no further than the US and their ultraliberal economic system which drives income inequalities further and further. Do you believe increasingly concentrating wealth in the hands of a few people is a sustainable system? The fact that you're alluding to welfare as an unsustainable mess is utterly laughable considering a lot of nations manage to do fine with it. Turns out citizens' well being is a significant driving force to the economy. Who would've thought?
[QUOTE=sgman91;52958905]Taxes can be raised to compensate for deficits, welfare can almost never be cut to do the same (See our current predicament with Medicare and Social Security. They are set to totally destroy our entire budget within the next few decades, but no one is willing to do much of anything about it.)[/QUOTE] Nobody's willing to do much about it because they're necessary social services and thus have to remain in place. Here's what people could do about it: Increase funding to those organizations in respect to our growing elderly population. To analogize: It's a bit like saying 'we must cut our spending on Education because it's unsustainable and will destroy our budget'. Which, if that were true, would only mean that our [I]budget[/I] is the thing that's unsustainable.
If the US budget isn't sufficient to provide for basic services then perhaps it's not a good time to lower taxes :thinking:
Or maybe it's a good time to [I]cut defense spending[/I] and [I]put it into social programs[/I]. We have plenty of money to throw at our social programs - all that's necessary is for someone to make it happen. Or, hell, you could also [I]enforce taxes[/I] and make corporations spend on their taxes what they're supposed to be spending instead of well beneath to [I]none[/I] in taxes.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52958905]It's a good thing I never said that, then! Welfare can help end an absolute level of poverty, but that isn't how we measure poverty. We look at it as a relative, and moving, number that follows the average wealth of society. The poor of today are far richer than the poor of 50 years ago when looking at an absolute level of wealth, but we still consider them in "poverty," just like we did the guy 50 years ago, even though their situations are far different.[/QUOTE] What's your point? What does "far richer" mean when the costs of living have increased as well? When anybody considering middle-class then (who were thus "far poorer" than some poor people are today) could buy themselves a house and now most middle-class people have a hard time even finding housing with decent rent? [editline]8th December 2017[/editline] Oh, and why would US welfare be incapable of raising people above the absolute poverty line of other countries who do manage to do so?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.