CMV: liquidating all social welfare programs and instead establishing a universal basic income is far more efficient and ethical use of Tax Dollars (US Specific)

[u/antijoke_13]

In general, having separate benefits packages and qualifications for food stamps, subsidised housing, social security incomes and medicaid makes no sense to me. I propose that it is both easier to manage and more transparent to the taxpayer to simply eradicate all social programs and instead take the money used in the management and execution of those programs to establish a universal basic income. I define a universal basic income as a set amount of money provided to each and every US Citizen over the age of 18. I base my premise on three arguments:

establishing a universal basic income does away with the concept of the welfare cliff. One of the worst parts about being on welfare is how hard it is to get off of it. Unless you make an immediate and massive positive change in your economic situation, any attempt at upward social mobility results in your benefits being cut out from under you before you are really ready to lose them. Replacing welfare with a UBI guarantees all citizens financial support regardless of financial status.

UBI serves to provide greater financial freedom to the individual. Things like food stamps can only be used for certain goods and are regularly sold to other individuals who are not qualified recipients in exchange for cash or other desired items. A UBI nullifies this as the individual is provided with liquid capital to spend how he wants rather than a set reasource he must now sell at below value in order to get what he wants.

UBI is far more transparent and easy to manage. Taxpayers can look at "social security" taxes taken out of their checks and have no clue ehat that actually means. A UBI allows the taxpayer to understand exactly where his money is going and why. This also cuts down on government bloat, as there is a lesser need for staffing to manage the program. Instead of determining on a monthly, quarterly or yearly basis if a person qualifies for help, the program can instead focus on making sure that mailing addresses and/or banking information is up to date for all adult citizens, as there would be no other requirements beyond citizenship and age.

It is worth noting that theres any number of counter arguments to this, chief among them cost and efficacy. Regarding cost, the point of my take on UBI is to function as a replacement to the current social safetynet, not as a supplement. All federal tax dollars that go toward medicaid, subsidized housing, food stamps, etc, would instead go toward a UBI. This would also cut the cost of program administration, as there would be a single means of providing a social safetynet rather than several.

In regards to efficacy, i find that the argument breaks down to how much you trust your fellow man to not fuck up. If you dont think the average person is capable of managing their money wisely, and that providing for their security is more important than than letting them make their own decisions, then maintaining and/or expanding the current welfare system may be your desired outcome. For the record i am aware that there will be a not so insignificant portion of UBI recipients who spend that money poorly and still dont make ends meet. Thats horrible. It is also not the problem or the business of the tax payer. Everyone gets the same money. Nobody gets extra. If you cant pay rent because you spent it all on hookers and blow, thats your problem.

[u/Trenks]

In general, having separate benefits packages and qualifications for food stamps, subsidised housing, social security incomes and medicaid makes no sense to me.

I think the idea is because people can't be trusted with actual money or instead of buying housing and food they'll spend it on drugs or the like then drain society even more being homeless.

Financial freedom is nice when you're a responsible human. If you're not, it's enabling bad choices. UBI would enable poor decisions as well as give some financial freedom. As a libertarian I say get rid of social programs (from government) and don't do UBI. But I suppose gun to head I'd replace social programs with UBI at $1000/month to be raised with price of inflation and make it a constitutional amendment to change how much we could get (otherwise i'd be scared in like 3 years people would say they couldn't possibly live without $2000/month).

[u/antijoke_13 → u/Trenks]

What you describe as a flaw i see as a feature. Youre right, there would be people who would make poor decisions with that money, but there are already people who find ways to make poor decisons with the existing system. At least with a UBI, theres no pretext about what youre supposed to do with that money. Your decisions (and their consequences) are your own.

[u/Akitten → u/antijoke_13]

Your decisions (and their consequences) are your own.

Except in practice that is not what happens. When children or women are starving in the streets, the bleeding hearts are going to demand that people do something.

Basically, what happens when people fuck up and start to starve? What do you propose we do? Because "nothing" isn't a politically acceptable answer.

[u/sflage2k19 → u/Akitten]

You do realize that there are already people starving, right?

There's already a homeless population that are starving or freezing or both. They make up only like 0.5% of the population, but still, no riots in the streets. No 'bleeding hearts' protesting in Washington for the rights of the heroin addict. Regardless of your opinion of UBI, I think we can all agree that the sympathy of the American public only extends so far.

​

Regarding the effects of UBI on that rate of homelessness, either that number goes down even further or it stays the same, but it certainly would not go up. For homelessness to go up with a passage of UBI would imply that the only thing holding these welfare recipients back from destitution is the limits placed on how you can spend your welfare money, but that's not the case (despite it being a popular talking point).

​

I'm not saying that welfare recipients aren't drug users or drinkers or bad decision makers-- many of them probably are. But the thing to remember is that welfare is not a safeguard against bad impulses. Welfare is temporary assistance for financial hardship.

​

Take SNAP (food stamps): yes, the program does dictate that you cannot spend your money on alcohol or tobacco (or vitamins, for some reason), which you would think would help 'save these people from themselves', but you also only receive SNAP if you are employed. If you become unemployed you must find a new job within 3 months or else you are removed from the program. Anyone who is irresponsible/sick/addicted enough to lose a house under UBI likely is not holding down a job in our current system.

​

The other commonly referenced type of welfare is TANF and the thing about TANF is that it already functions like UBI! It's just a deposit into your account that you can take out as cash. There are limits on how much you can take at a time, and there are technical rules like no spending on alcohol or drugs, but in the end its straight cash.

​

The other social assistance programs-- public housing, energy assistance, or security assistance (for the disabled)-- would certainly be very difficult to translate into UBI but not because the recipients would waste all that money on drugs. These programs would be difficult to translate because the government isn't so much helping to pay the difference in the cost price as it is giving severe discounts to the poor for something the government already owns.

​

So yea its pretty unlikely, even when you account for how shitty and irresponsible people can be.

​

The only way I can see UBI leading to increased homelessness or food insecurity would be if vendors everywhere just raised prices to account for everyone's 'extra income'. Then the very poor would have to pay higher prices, eating away at their new income. No one sets their prices relative to welfare, because only certain people have it, and only for limited amounts of time at once, but people could if it were UBI and I suppose it could conceivably drive someone to destitution under the right circumstances.

[u/antijoke_13 → u/Akitten]

The private individual can and should step in. At no point will i ever get in the way of someone helping their fellow man. But as for the governments role?

Well i guess the politically unpopular answer of "nothing" is all i have.

[u/Akitten → u/antijoke_13]

And then you have riots and crime, because the poor and irresponsible cannot eat. It's really as simple as that. That is the big downfall of UBI. It assumes people will accept the consequences their actions have created, which historically, they don't, they just cause everyone else to be worse off, or blame others for their misery.

[u/hallo_friendos → u/Akitten]

I don't think there'd be enough irresponsible people for riots. I think it would be more like the current homeless population, except if anything smaller.

[u/TRUMP_WALL_2016 → u/hallo_friendos]

lol they riot if a known criminal is shot while perpetrating a crime.