Universal Basic Income/Andrew Yang Discussion

[blankall]

People do get income clawed back when they earn more, as they'd be paying more taxes to support ubi.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

This is a total mischaracterization of my position, and comes across as a desperate attempt to undermine it.

No, it just allows the weight of reality to rest on the house of cards you are attempting to build. What you're suggesting requires massive systemic overhaul in component of our society and culture. Every single system of we rely on for our society to function - market economy, governance, personal beliefs and responsibility, etc. - are going to have to be altered. People are not going to accept it. Corporations are not going to accept it.

Fact is, every person has the same minimum basic needs - nurturing food, clean water, safe & suitable shelter, reasonable clothing, social interaction, and health care when the person gets sick and/or too old and requires care. No one chooses to have these needs; they are simply inherent to being human.

Your're dead wrong. Again, you don't know what you are talking about. Everyone has different basic needs. Children and elderly require more care and attention. Same with people with physical or mental illness. Then there is the extreme poor who may live in areas where services do not exist. You are trying to force everyone into the same situation which is reflective of our society and the complex nature of it.

My opinion is that anything beyond that list is a luxury.

Spoken like someone who has never experienced poverty or actually helped a community try to escape the clutches of poverty. Even if you operate as meeting basic human needs is the expectation, you are not meeting that need. $20K does not meet basic human needs pretty much everywhere. You are trying to treat a symptom rather than treat the disease. You can give a man a fish, but if you teach a man to fish... ! Solve the actual systemic problem rather that try and throw money at it thinking that uneducated people will somehow figure it out themselves.

Which is what UBI + a strong health care system does. Any money made from a job is for the worker to keep, without worrying about UBI getting clawed back. Furthermore, taxation would not significantly impact those on UBI and low income jobs, as most taxation would fall on things like higher-income tax brackets, property tax, and non-essential consumption.

So the tax system will be overhauled as well. How many corporations and rich people do you think are going to hang around your little social experiment? How many corporations are going to look at your tax rate and just move out of Dodge? How many people of affluence will just pull a Murray Edwards? Businesses and people with means, the ones you are saddling with funding this scheme, are not going to sit back and take it. They are going to pull out and move operations elsewhere. And when those operations are gone, they aren't coming back.

It does not help "very few". It helps everyone. If we live in a society where people aren't tossed aside like trash as soon as they don't do as society demands of them, we'd see a lot less crime happening everywhere. A lot of crime (I'd argue most crime) is done by people acting out of desperation. And before you say this is "baseless" and "Utopian fantasy", I can assure you that it's absolutely not. Just give it a bit of thought and you'll understand it. When faced with the choice, "I can receive 20k/year no questions asked, or I can get involved with criminal activities and risk messing up my life". Who in their right mind would choose option B?

You have an unreasonable expectation of what $20K will buy with people. If the basic living wage is better than double that, triple that in many areas, the incentive is not strong. People still have to make up the difference and will go to the appropriate means to do so. People will rely on the same means to meet their needs after UBI is implemented. You are killing off the many social programs that people rely up to meet a minimal standard of living, and replacing it with a marginal replacement, so what do you think is going to happen?

Not an issue as long as the fees are kept low.

The Canadian health care system in its current form creates moral hazard. If there's no deterrent to going to the doctor every day for every minor little ache or pain, what reason is there not to go? I also think there's not much incentive for people to live active healthy lifestyles and eat properly.

You're going to have to explain this. How is the Canadian health care system creating moral hazard? Also, $20K a year is not an incentive for people to live an active healthy lifestyle. Just the opposite. Poor people eat bad food because that is all they can afford. Good food is expensive. Junk food is cheap. When you don't have enough money to put a roof over your head and have to cut corners and that directly affects diet. As a result people gain do not have a healthy lifestyle. It is a vicious circle well documented and why many programs operate the way they do.

$48k/year in the poorest state covers "basic needs" and nothing else...? I strongly disagree. See what I said at the beginning of this post.

You can disagree with anything you like, but the data is there and it is irrefutable.

Strawman. Of course there has to be some administration. But you're the one acting like the cost of means testing (and all the public sector workers required to carry it out) is minuscule compared to the cost of automatically sending direct deposits to bank accounts on a monthly basis...

Its because you don't know what you're talking about. You obviously don't know how government works and are approaching it from a private sector position. You think everyone is the same. That everyone has the same access. That everyone has a bank account. People come from different conditions and it is the responsibility of the government to provide the promised services in the best ways possible to meet the needs of the communities they serve. You're making wild assumptions based on your condition and not recognizing that there are millions of people out there who do not have the access you do.

It absolutely is an ad hominem, and a backhanded attempt at stereotyping me as some young naive kid. I cringe every time someone tries to play the "I've been around longer than you, so I'm more qualified to speak on these matters" card. While it may seem logical on its surface, it ignores potential biases that may have developed in the person as the years have gone on. Bottom line, more experience doesn't always translate into better judgement.

It is attempting to understand your point of reference. Your thinking on this issue is very rudimentary and is coming from a single perspective. You think all people are the same - they are not - and all conditions are the same - they are not - so have attempted to solve all problems based on your very limited knowledge and exposure. Society is very complex and there is no thing as a single fit solution to a problem like poverty and social mobility. Also, I have to add, that your comments clearly reflect that you think expertise, experience, and exposure mean nothing when solving problems.

Another strawman! I didn't say $20k/year is enough to live comfortably. I said $48k/year is enough to live comfortably. I said $20k gives you basic necessities, and the power to walk away from any ###### employer who wants to treat you like garbage, without having to worry about the prospect of perishing on the street.

Sorry, but you sound like someone who is living in your parent's house and has this incredible safety net to fall back on. $20K is not a lot of money. It does not meet the basic needs of an individual. If you think that is enough money to tell your employer to go #### themselves you are sadly mistaken. Jobs are hard to come by, especially for the poor and the disadvantaged. Yeah, a white kid from a middle class or better up bringing can really speak to the plight of the poor black or brown person without walking a mile in their sandals (if they can afford sandals). You are constructing a social reality that just doesn't exist and thinking throwing money at individuals is going to solve systemic problems. Yeah, you come off as a kid with no point of reference or experience to understand the complex nature of the systems you're talking about. And yes, experience and exposure matters.

But at the end of the day, the government is the government, and can seize assets if corporations decide to make nuclear decisions. It's not ideal to do such a thing, but we absolutely cannot allow major corporations to hold us hostage like that.

And corporations are corporations and can close up shop in one country and move to another. Again, you don't know what you are talking about. There is a reason why states/provinces will compete like hell to attract this big corporations, and why they bend over backward to keep them happy. They provide jobs and a tax base. Piss them off and they will pull up stakes and leave. You have to strike a fine balance between private and public sector, and you're thinking you can bully your way to forcing compliance. That isn't the way the world works.

This goes back to what I said earlier about your attitude of inevitability and defeatism. These systems absolutely can be gutted to save money. Transparency is actually increased when government is simplified, and every dollar can be (relatively) easily traced. With UBI, the bulk of government spending is going right back to the people in direct payments, and only a fraction of spending goes to priorities such as health care, education, law enforcement.

You don't understand how government transparency works. Government transparency is provided through oversight means. That is a level of bureaucracy that is mandatory to establish transparency in the public sector. You don't gain transparency through "smaller government" that is a fallacy created by people who think they can apply private sector practices to public sector operations. Public sector has a requirement to have every transaction double and triple checked.

It's extremely vague. Who is to say when taxation is "without representation" and when it isn't? Or when there is "proper process" and when there isn't? It's almost entirely subjective.

It's not vague. It has a lot more substance behind it than UBI. It is a principle that has been used to keep taxation and systemic abuse in check for over two hundred years.

You showed me pictures of people living in extremely dilapidated buildings, then telling me that this is what $48k/year gets you. I'm not really sure what to say in response to that, other than it flies in the face of every single thing I've seen in my life to this point.

No, you missed the point. Those are picture of people that don't have that $48K a year. That is what $20K looks like. Those poor people are living on a fraction of basic income needs, which is exactly what your UBI proposal would be; a fraction of what is required to live. I was hoping to put a face on this issue for you, but you seem to have missed the reality that so many people live under.

Help me understand then. Can they not move to a place that has more jobs and better opportunities? Wouldn't a UBI help them do that? Let's say 2 of these people live together in one apartment, that's $40k/year UBI between the two of them, in addition to what they earn from their jobs. How is that unreasonable? Help me understand what I'm missing here because clearly I'm missing something...?

Poor people do not have the economic means to move. Again, you're applying your frame of reference on people you have not idea about. Oh, if you aren't happy with your life, just move! That isn't possible for the vast majority of people. Most people don't have that as an option. There are millions of people out there that are stuck in their current predicament and know that is their lot in life. They struggle to find jobs, and when they do they have to do everything in their power to maintain that job. They don't have the economic or social means to move.

We have different views on what poverty is and whether upward mobility actually solves the problem. See my previous post.

Obviously. You don't understand poverty. I have a very strong feeling you have never experienced poverty. I don't think you've ever faced a day where you haven't have a full belly or a roof over your head, let along dealing with that for weeks or months at a time. I seriously doubt you have had to make the decision of which bill you are not going to pay so you can go and buy yourself a $5 pizza that you're going to stretch for a whole week. You think poverty is something that can be solved by giving people money, instead of the means to better themselves and give them the tools to leverage social mobility.

"Upward mobility is the answer to everything" is pretty close to what Ayn Rand believed. Just sayin.

Do you even know what upward mobility is? Based on your responses I don't think so. I also think you better go back and take another read of your copy of Atlas Shrugged. Something didn't resonate.

You brought up systemic racism, so I pointed out that one of the sentiments fuelling racism in today's society is the idea that non-white people are "stealing jobs" from white people. Maybe this sentiment would disappear if we, as a society, weren't so preoccupied with the idea that every person needs to have a job.

In your system, every person HAS to have a job. Without one they have no hope of meeting the basic needs to live by. Poverty skyrockets and the poverty cycle kicks into full gear.

[bizaro86]

A "living wage" implies a generously comfortable lifestyle? Do you have a clue what you're talking about? The "living wage" is defined as the minimum income necessary for a worker to meet their basic needs (food, housing, and other essential needs such as clothing and hygiene needs). That is not generous, that is basic.

You didn't provide a source when you declared the living wage in Mississippi to be $48k, so its hard to check it for credibility. But it certainly doesn't seem plausible to me.

The US Census says median rent in Mississippi is $742/month. Source: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fa...e/MS/BZA115218

As someone who has lived on less than 48k per year in a place a lot more expensive than Mississippi, I think the assertion that that is a minimum, basic income comes from the same privilege that you accuse Mathgod of having.

Maybe in the US all that extra income would go to Healthcare costs, but its definitely possible to live in Calgary on less than $48k. I also think its ironic that a two adult family unit would get 48k/year under the UBI proposal that started the thread.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Maybe in the US all that extra income would go to Healthcare costs, but its definitely possible to live in Calgary on less than $48k. I also think its ironic that a two adult family unit would get 48k/year under the UBI proposal that started the thread.

I mean this is kind of the crux of it.

I don't think a UBI is feasible until healthcare is covered. In Canada we are positioned to talk about a UBI realistically, but in the US, even with a UBI, one bout of illness or accident can and will wipe you out.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

You didn't provide a source when you declared the living wage in Mississippi to be $48k, so its hard to check it for credibility. But it certainly doesn't seem plausible to me.

I was working from 2018 numbers that I used in a report on poverty to our district on the effects of education and social mobility on disadvantaged communities. This was all paid for research so I'm not at liberty to share those exact numbers as they are proprietary. Here are some of the latest numbers from this year. Things have dropped a little bit, down from fourty-seven and change to $46K and Mississippi has actually risen in the ratings. Low state is now Kentucky at $43,303, high is Hawaii at $61K.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Here's another article that just came up about student hunger that shows the complexity of the issues being discussed.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/hung...035925085.html

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by New Era

I was working from 2018 numbers that I used in a report on poverty to our district on the effects of education and social mobility on disadvantaged communities. This was all paid for research so I'm not at liberty to share those exact numbers as they are proprietary. Here are some of the latest numbers from this year. Things have dropped a little bit, down from fourty-seven and change to $46K and Mississippi has actually risen in the ratings. Low state is now Kentucky at $43,303, high is Hawaii at $61K.

From the site: " In public policy, advocates define the living wage as the minimum income necessary for a worker to meet their basic needs. Basic needs include housing, food, healthcare, and other essential needs."

Our Mississippi basic needs can't include lower end housing, so lets use the median rent for the whole state.

742*12 = $8904/year

Having a car is a basic need? Maybe some places. Let's include it. Insurance.com says Mississippi costs $26,063 for vehicle ownership over 5 years. 26,063/5 = $5,213/year

For utilities and internet, I used $230/month and $46/month. Then Netflix for $9 and $60 for cell service. Source here: https://www.expatistan.com/cost-of-l...on-mississippi
(230+46+9+60)*12 = $4140

I couldn't find the cost of food in Mississippi, but I found a reference to Statistics Canada saying the average person spends $214/month on groceries. Lets assume our basic income person has two dependents, and that groceries cost the same in USD in Mississippi as they do in CAD here (so that's giving them a 30% bonus, effectively). We'll add another $125 for cleaning supplies and personal care items.
$767*12 =$9204/year

That gets me to $27,461. I've included high speed internet, netflix, and an unlimited data cell phone plan. Food, rent, utilities, and all costs for a car. Seems to have the basics covered. All that's really missing is taxes and healthcare. If that's more than 20k maybe that's the place the US should be starting...

[CliffFletcher]

One thing I find interesting about how living wage is calculated is the assumption that the typical person lives alone. I know the number of single individual households have been increasing in recent years, but they’re still nowhere near a majority.

From when I moved out at 20 and moved in with my now wife at 29 I had roommates. So did virtually all of my friends and co-workers. We worked in food services, retail, in construction, and having roommates was how you managed to not spend everything on food, rent and utilities, and student loans. Living solo was a rare luxury.

So when did the floor get raised to earning enough to live on your own?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

One thing I find interesting about how living wage is calculated is the assumption that the typical person lives alone. I know the number of single individual households have been increasing in recent years, but they’re still nowhere near a majority.

From when I moved out at 20 and moved in with my now wife at 29 I had roommates. So did virtually all of my friends and co-workers. We worked in food services, retail, in construction, and having roommates was how you managed to not spend everything on food, rent and utilities, and student loans. Living solo was a rare luxury.

So when did the floor get raised to earning enough to live on your own?

Shouldn't the baseline be the ability to live on your own? If you don't have enough to meet your basics needs as an individual without the contributions of others, do you have enough?

[Lanny_McDonald]

This explains the difference between minimum wage and living wage.

https://www.thebalance.com/living-wage-3305771

"These costs are food, health care, rent, transportation, childcare, and taxes."

"Average health insurance premiums in 2019 were $7,188 for single coverage and $20,576 for family coverage. People making the minimum wage cannot afford health insurance. They must rely on Obamacare subsidies or free health clinics."

What is also not taken into consideration is the idea of savings. 78% of Americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck, so generate no savings for emergencies or retirement. 69% of Americans have less than $1,000 in savings. This needs to be part of the living wage calculation that is not taken into consideration.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Shouldn't the baseline be the ability to live on your own? If you don't have enough to meet your basics needs as an individual without the contributions of others, do you have enough?

Not for the purpose of a government program.

Renting a room not an apartment or house should be a reasonable threshold for any kind of UBI. Living in non-shared accommodation is a want not a need.

[JohnnyB]

The government already produces tables used for evaluating the minimum levels of income required for different households in Canada based on number of members and size of the town or city the household is located in.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1...pid=1110024101

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GGG

Not for the purpose of a government program.

Renting a room not an apartment or house should be a reasonable threshold for any kind of UBI. Living in non-shared accommodation is a want not a need.

What? A government program that forces communal living as part of a minimum standard of living? You think that's going to fly?

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by New Era

What? A government program that forces communal living as part of a minimum standard of living? You think that's going to fly?

Its very common in many expensive cities. Take London England for example, I have 4 sets of friends with household incomes in the $70 - $120K CAD range and all they can afford is a room with an ensuite and shared kitchen on the outskirts of town. Its common in many expensive cities for this to occur.

Obviously that's not common in the less expensive cities of the world, but to some that seems like a luxury to have your own apartment or house. If you don't want communal living, move to those less expensive cities. Why should a federal government program subsidize someone's life style in Toronto or Vancouver?

Edit: My point is, the program may force communal living in certain larger cities, but should be based on an average cost of living. Some in the thread said this is one of the main issues of a federal program versus a more focused city by city program. I don't feel like the definition of or 'baseline' should expect that someone should have the ability to live on their own.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GGG

Not for the purpose of a government program.

Renting a room not an apartment or house should be a reasonable threshold for any kind of UBI. Living in non-shared accommodation is a want not a need.

I disagree. Living in a non-shared accommodation is no less a need than living in a house with three other people. The base need is shelter, everything above that is essentially a "want" if that's how you choose to look at it, which includes basically anything above a drop-in shelter.

You also need to clarify what you think the government should base the funding level on. Two people? Three? Four? Five? It's nice in theory to allow the government dictate how many people you need to live with to survive, but that's not how it should be calculated.

Say you arbitrarily set the amount at $500, and say this covers a shared accommodation expense with an average of three people. The availability for affordable housing units in Calgary is already low, with many low-income people struggling to find homes they can afford, so what are you going to do? Spent the money to build more? Or just say "here's an amount that could get you into affordable housing, now, there may not be any affordable housing for you to get into at that amount, but that's not our problem." It defeats the purpose of a UBI, does it not? If it's not enough to live because it your limits your options further than just "luxury vs non-luxury" down to "having a place to live or not"... it's not enough, is it?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I disagree. Living in a non-shared accommodation is no less a need than living in a house with three other people. The base need is shelter, everything above that is essentially a "want" if that's how you choose to look at it, which includes basically anything above a drop-in shelter.

You also need to clarify what you think the government should base the funding level on. Two people? Three? Four? Five? It's nice in theory to allow the government dictate how many people you need to live with to survive, but that's not how it should be calculated.

Say you arbitrarily set the amount at $500, and say this covers a shared accommodation expense with an average of three people. The availability for affordable housing units in Calgary is already low, with many low-income people struggling to find homes they can afford, so what are you going to do? Spent the money to build more? Or just say "here's an amount that could get you into affordable housing, now, there may not be any affordable housing for you to get into at that amount, but that's not our problem." It defeats the purpose of a UBI, does it not? If it's not enough to live because it your limits your options further than just "luxury vs non-luxury" down to "having a place to live or not"... it's not enough, is it?

I guess I would say that the funds for having your own place vs living with a roommate could (generally speaking) come from the income from working vs the government program. There needs to be a limit somewhere.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I disagree. Living in a non-shared accommodation is no less a need than living in a house with three other people. The base need is shelter, everything above that is essentially a "want" if that's how you choose to look at it, which includes basically anything above a drop-in shelter.

You also need to clarify what you think the government should base the funding level on. Two people? Three? Four? Five? It's nice in theory to allow the government dictate how many people you need to live with to survive, but that's not how it should be calculated.

Say you arbitrarily set the amount at $500, and say this covers a shared accommodation expense with an average of three people. The availability for affordable housing units in Calgary is already low, with many low-income people struggling to find homes they can afford, so what are you going to do? Spent the money to build more? Or just say "here's an amount that could get you into affordable housing, now, there may not be any affordable housing for you to get into at that amount, but that's not our problem." It defeats the purpose of a UBI, does it not? If it's not enough to live because it your limits your options further than just "luxury vs non-luxury" down to "having a place to live or not"... it's not enough, is it?

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I guess I would say that the funds for having your own place vs living with a roommate could (generally speaking) come from the income from working vs the government program. There needs to be a limit somewhere.

Both good comments. And this may boil down to a cultural issue. In Canada the directive that forces people to co-habitate to survive might work, as Canada has a much stronger belief in the collective good, but here in the US this would never sell because of the staunch belief in individuality, liberty, and freedom. I guess that's the point about this whole UBI discussion. What is the base expectation as that will ultimately determine if people will support such an idea. If you're going to remove all societal support for the individual to achieve their own path, give them a payment that then still forces them to rely on someone else to afford anything, then this is dead on arrival. People want self-determination and a half baked program that inhibits that is not going to sell in the US. Its been a couple decades since I lived in Canada, but I can't believe people would accept that there either.

[81MC]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I disagree. Living in a non-shared accommodation is no less a need than living in a house with three other people. The base need is shelter, everything above that is essentially a "want" if that's how you choose to look at it, which includes basically anything above a drop-in shelter.

You also need to clarify what you think the government should base the funding level on. Two people? Three? Four? Five? It's nice in theory to allow the government dictate how many people you need to live with to survive, but that's not how it should be calculated.

Generally, private sleeping quarters for different sexed children and non-spousal partners is a pretty reasonable take. I believe that’s also how most agencies also provide housing assistance?

I don’t think anyone is suggesting it’s appropriate for a 20 YO female to have no option but to share a bedroom. But renting a bedroom in a facility with shared washrooms/kitchens, like was and is pretty normal in a lot of the world is absolutely a reasonable standard.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

One thing I find interesting about how living wage is calculated is the assumption that the typical person lives alone. I know the number of single individual households have been increasing in recent years, but they’re still nowhere near a majority.

From when I moved out at 20 and moved in with my now wife at 29 I had roommates. So did virtually all of my friends and co-workers. We worked in food services, retail, in construction, and having roommates was how you managed to not spend everything on food, rent and utilities, and student loans. Living solo was a rare luxury.

So when did the floor get raised to earning enough to live on your own?

When did 'there are no jobs available so I need UBI' become acceptable despite the fact that there are literally thousands of jobs available?

Probably around the same time the goalposts on acceptable living arrangements got moved from roommates to I want my own digs cause I'm special.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Azure

When did 'there are no jobs available so I need UBI' become acceptable despite the fact that there are literally thousands of jobs available?

Probably around the same time the goalposts on acceptable living arrangements got moved from roommates to I want my own digs cause I'm special.

Well, UBI is a future response to a future problem where increased automation may mean rapid job loss. Try to keep up. Even then, the easy answer to your question is by solving another one: if there are literally thousands of jobs available, why is there unemployment?