You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Chicago just approved one of the US's largest basic-income pilots: $500 monthly payments for 5,000 p
- Thread starter ipatent
- Start date
Oh hell yeah we do. Inheritance tax basis step-up, generation skipping trusts, "peanut buttering" the QSBS...the list goes on of how taxpayers pay for trust fund babies.It's a bad analogy. The taxpayer doesn't pay for their trust funds.
But even all that aside, even if one believes that how we treat a person exhibiting a certain behavior set should depend on how rich their parents were, QBI is more about the admittedly counterintuitive idea that the cost of ensuring this disparate treatment simply isn't worth it. It's simply more efficient and cheaper to distribute a given amount of funding via QBI than through the vast bureaucracies we currently have. And it's not the job of government to tell people how to run their lives. Those are ultimate bedrock conservative principals, no?
Oh hell yeah we do. Inheritance tax basis step-up, generation skipping trusts, "peanut buttering" the QSBS...the list goes on of how taxpayers pay for trust fund babies.
But even all that aside, even if one believes that how we treat a person exhibiting a certain behavior set should depend on how rich their parents were, QBI is more about the admittedly counterintuitive idea that the cost of ensuring this disparate treatment simply isn't worth it. It's simply more efficient and cheaper to distribute a given amount of funding via QBI than through the vast bureaucracies we currently have. That's an ultimate bedrock conservative principal, no?
As I wrote previously, a large percentage of the people involved need guidance. They have mental capacity issues. I also don't think the murder rate would drop appreciably with a UBI of $500 per month, which isn't even enough for groceries for a small family.
Some do need guidance and have mental capacity issues, many others do not. It sounds like we agree at a minimum that those who just happen to be poor, through a variety of circumstances that have nothing to do with their mental capacity, would be better served by UBI than the paternalistic, bureaucratic system we have now?As I wrote previously, a large percentage of the people involved need guidance. They have mental capacity issues. I also don't think the murder rate would drop appreciably with a UBI of $500 per month, which isn't even enough for groceries for a small family.
As far as those who "need guidance", I am again curious if you feel that applies to everyone who has made a similar decision, regardless of wealth, or just poor people? I know a few trust fund babies that "need guidance" far more than many poor people I know. I'm curious how you square letting them continue consequence free for in many cases the exact behavior that require we require "guidance" to for a poor person? That's a moral issue you seem bound and determined to avoid thinking about, which must mean it makes you deeply uncomfortable?
That said, do you think the current bureaucracy is providing this "guidance" or that there is an efficient way to do so? If so, what would that be?
By the way, this is a UBI pilot. Obviously, those in favor of UBI would like to see it expanded. But $500 on the margin is a huge amount of money for those who have very little. I think it's instructive that you appear to look through the lens that it is a sole source of income for people who can't or won't work, in which case sure, $500 isn't enough. But those who support UBI don't look at poor people as all being incapable of or unwilling to work. They realize the reality that a huge number of poor people actually do work, many far harder than I do at least. And UBI might make a huge difference in their life, even an extra $500 a month.
It sounds like we agree at a minimum that those who just happen to be poor, through a variety of circumstances that have nothing to do with their mental capacity, would be better served by UBI than the paternalistic, bureaucratic system we have now?
A lot of the bureaucracy provides some measure (not nearly enough) of the guidance and structure that many of them need, so I don't necessarily agree.
That would then mean that you believe every poor person in Chicago either has "mental capacity" issues or requires "guidance and structure"? That's a pretty incredible picture of the poor, in your mind it appears that every single one of them is poor by their own fault or because they're faulty? If so, that's the primary difference between you and those who think UBI is a good idea. Those who think UBI is a good idea believe in the reality that there are a lot of working poor, believe that many poor people are there by temporary circumstances beyond their control and that once stuck in the cycle of poverty it's really hard to break out, and that everyone should be treated with the same level of human dignity when it comes to insisting that they accept government "guidance and structure" in response to a given set of behaviors. If one doesn't believe those things, then one wouldn't believe UBI is a good idea. They could also benefit significantly with some time volunteering with the working poor, IMHO.A lot of the bureaucracy provides some measure (not nearly enough) of the guidance and structure that many of them need, so I don't necessarily agree.
BTW, it must be incredibly hard for you to face the idea that you believe we should apply a different standard of what "guidance and structure" a person is required to accept from the government entirely based on the wealth of one's parents, because except from denying that trust fund babies get tax benefits (which was easily debunked) you have conspicuously ignored that very inconvenient idea. Are you aware you're ignoring it, or is your subconscious just pretending it doesn't exist because it can't deal with the congnitive dissonance?
in your mind it appears that every single one of them is poor
every poor person in Chicago either has "mental capacity" issues or requires "guidance and structure"
I didn't state either of those propositions. You're setting up a strawman argument with absolutes I don't agree with.
I do believe that a large proportion of the urban poor need a lot more guidance and structure than they're getting. We should be creating campus-like environments for them in areas where the cost of living is lower.
But not the trust fund rich who need the same guidance and structure?I didn't state either of those propositions. You're setting up a strawman argument with absolutes I don't agree with.
I do believe that a large proportion of the urban poor need a lot more guidance and structure than they're getting. We should be creating campus-like environments for them in areas where the cost of living is lower.
It's not a strawman if it's the inevitable result of what you said. You disagreed with the concept that anyone who was poor should get UBI. And you stated multiple times that you think the reason we shouldn't give out UBI because the recipients have "mental capacity" issues or require "guidance and structure". What possible conclusion can you draw from those statements then that you believe all the poor have "mental capacity" issues or require "guidance and structure"? That's actually a charitable read of what you stated that gives you the benefit of believing your arguments are internally consistent. If you don’t believe that, what reason do you have for not providing UBI to those who don't have "mental capacity" issues or require "guidance and structure", and why wouldn’t you have brought out those reasons before now?
Listen, I don’t think you're an awful human. Quite to the contrary, I think you've never been put in the position where someone pointed out the awful conclusions that flow from beliefs you probably inherited. It's OK if that makes you uncomfortable, it's OK if you re-examine those beliefs in order to make them both internally consistent and not lead to the current awful underlying assumptions. And none of those things require you change your underlying belief system, as I've pointed out eliminating bureaucracy and reducing government telling people what to do are basic conservative tenants.
But not the trust fund rich who need the same guidance and structure?
I don't know why you keep bringing them up. They're not murdering tens of thousands of innocent people every year, and they support themselves. They don't need the same type of guidance and structure. It is ludicrous to think that.
it's the inevitable result of what you said
It wasn't.
You disagreed with the concept that anyone who was poor should get UBI.
These are public funds that can be better spent elsewhere. We already have programs for jobs training and job placement. Would you eliminate them? If not, where would the money come from to make this into more than a pilot program?
Last edited:
The vast majority of poor people aren't murdering anyone either, and the trust fund babies aren't supporting themselves. As I clearly listed, they are taking millions in tax subsidy, each one far more than any poor person gets in their lifetime. In fact to answer your question about where the funds for UBI can come from, eliminate all the tax breaks I listed that benefit trust fund babies and you have a damn good start! You listed a set of behaviors that you asserted should require paternalistic government oversight. I pointed out that some trust fund babies exhibited those exact same behaviors and if anything cost taxpayers far more on a per capita basis. I happen to feel that a poor noncriminal should be treated exactly the same as a trust fund baby noncriminal if exhibiting the same behavior. Why do you disagree?I don't know why you keep bringing them up. They're not murdering tens of thousands of innocent people every year, and they support themselves.
It wasn't.
These are public funds that can be better spent elsewhere. We already have programs for jobs training and job placement. Would you eliminate them? If not, where would the money come from to make this into more than a pilot program?
Why does UBI have to come from job placement funds? Another inherent ugly assumption in what you've said is that poor people don't have jobs. There are plenty of programs that simply provide enough extra benefits to working poor people so that they can afford food or other basic necessities. Why not re-purpose that into UBI for those who don't have "mental capacity" issues or require "guidance and structure"? Why go to all the effort required to verify WIC and SNAP and instead give that out as UBI to those who don't have "mental capacity" issues or require "guidance and structure". It is, in fact, the inevitable conclusion that if you don’t support removing the strings attached to any kind of assistance for anyone, and you think strings should be attached because recipients have "mental capacity" issues or require "guidance and structure", that line of thinking necessarily presumes all recipients of any aid have "mental capacity" issues or require "guidance and structure". Otherwise, why insist that no aid program of any kind going to those those who don't have "mental capacity" issues or require "guidance and structure" be turned into UBI for those participants?