ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 24th November 2019, 11:27 AM   #121
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 11,997
Lightbulb

Originally Posted by Agatha View Post
This seems a peculiarly American thing. Benefits (welfare) here in the UK is paid into bank accounts as money. Vouchers for this or that seems to deny agency to people - are Americans seen as that much more untrustworthy in the way they would use their welfare payments?
If you've read the thread, you'd see that many Americans are untrusting as opposed to untrustworthy. Every post where someone talks about how they are unwilling to give a poor person cash but [supposedly] willing to give them food of the same value is an example.

It's the morality of wealth. Someone who doesn't have money is guilty of not trying hard enough. Rich people are just plain better than poor people
Babbylonian is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2019, 11:41 AM   #122
Agatha
Winking at the Moon
Moderator
 
Agatha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 13,063
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
If you've read the thread, you'd see that many Americans are untrusting as opposed to untrustworthy. Every post where someone talks about how they are unwilling to give a poor person cash but [supposedly] willing to give them food of the same value is an example.

It's the morality of wealth. Someone who doesn't have money is guilty of not trying hard enough. Rich people are just plain better than poor people
Thank you, that lack of trust in the less fortunate seems to explain it a lot.

And yet, most homeless people would never accept food from people as the risk of tampering is too high - even if the likelihood is low the consequences can be severe (when I worked with homeless people, many had a horror story of adulterated food). Seems to me the lack of trust should go the other way.
__________________
Why can't you be more like Agatha? - Loss Leader
Agatha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2019, 12:59 PM   #123
portlandatheist
Illuminator
 
portlandatheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,216
Originally Posted by Orphia Nay View Post
Domestic violence.

Domestic partners need to fight over what food (or alcohol, cigarettes, lottery tickets for that matter) they can afford to buy. We all have food likes and dislikes.

Yet governments and taxpayers throw all sorts of funding towards paying people to "help" deal with the violence AFTER IT'S HAPPENED.


Homelessness.
See Detroit's Tiny House project for how giving houses at very low interest rates, and the Finnish project, gives people the footing to create meaning in their lives.

Child neglect.
Sole parenting.



e.g. Australia - unemployment benefits are less per person if in a couple.
That's ******.

Then the politicians wonder why so many families break up. Do they even realise that's in the rules?

(As well as the money arguments in relationships.)

And they wonder why mothers struggle to work to feed children but haven't got enough to pay child for childcare.

Non-Communicable Diseases.

12 donuts are $3.
A bag of fresh spinach is $3.

You can't work all day with 40 calories of spinach in your stomach.
You can work all day with 12 donuts (8400 calories) almost keeping your stomach from feeling empty but you'll probably gain weight.

Then there's depression, a debilitating co-partner to low wages and poor quality of life.


Crime.

Needn't really say how crime is about wanting more money.
Not even serious crime, or drug crime, though relevant.
I knew people who shoplifted because they had no money.

===

Giving people adequate to cover basic needs removes the burden of care of wasteful systems that perpetuate the problems, not solve them.

It's a Basic Income because it covers basic needs. It's not a bloody luxury.
A UBI would pay dividends in ways like you listed and even in other ways we haven't even thought of or can even calculate.
Many current welfare systems disincentivize work. What point would there be in working, even a few hours a week, if it cut into your other benefits?
portlandatheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2019, 01:26 PM   #124
deadrose
Illuminator
 
deadrose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: the wet side of the mountains
Posts: 3,248
Originally Posted by portlandatheist View Post
Many current welfare systems disincentivize work. What point would there be in working, even a few hours a week, if it cut into your other benefits?
When I tried to get back into the workforce after my oldest son was born, this became very clear, and this was before they started the draconian limits.

For 3 months, I got partial benefits and childcare support. At the end of that 3 months, all that stopped cold. My subsidized rent doubled, my childcare benefit was ended, everything. Except of course, the wages at my new job. They did not go up. I'd been given a verbal promise that they would at the 3-month mark, but foolish me, I didn't insist on getting it in writing.

I sat down and calculated the new budget and realized I wouldn't even break even - I'd be in the red every month, except that on that budgetary scale there's no such thing as running in the red. There are no reserves, no credit. So that was that. I had to leave the job, reapply for everything. And this was with a single child. It precipitated a major depressive episode.

Welfare systems have only gotten more punishing since then. Five years lifetime benefits allowed, "any job is a good job" even if it's split graveyard shifts or on call (try finding childcare for that!), and so on. And everything is designed to be grinding and demeaning and depressing, because if you give up, that's another person off welfare for their government figures.
deadrose is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2019, 02:08 PM   #125
P.J. Denyer
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 6,015
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I do wonder about someone who has enough income to be paying tax lying awake at night worrying that somewhere in his vast country some semi-destitute person might be wasting a bit of their meagre benefits allowance on a small luxury.
I think it's all part of the theory that so long as you give people someone to look down on they won't look up at the people who are really making their lives worse.
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion

"Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2019, 03:25 PM   #126
Elaedith
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 938
I think a UBI would be superior to current welfare and benefits systems for many of the reasons others have stated.

People talk about current welfare systems being a safety net, but safety nets must be available unconditionally. If somebody took away a safety net below a tightrope walker who was falling through the air on the grounds that it's their own fault they fell or they don't meet criteria X and Y for having a net, they would get charged with murder or attempted murder. People have benefits denied or taken away even when benefits are needed to survive, and the people who take them away are not normally charged with criminal offences. Therefore, I don't believe current benefits are in fact safety nets.
I think some people have trouble getting their heads around the idea of giving a benefit universally because of the entrenched attitude that benefits are an alternative to working, and therefore it has to be made difficult to get them and unpleasant to be on them. The point about a universal benefit is that anyone will always be better off the more they earn so there is no need to worry about disincentive (as long as the benefit is not absurdly high) as was pointed out before. People would not be as trapped with no way foreseeable to improve their situation unless they have a reasonable prospect of finding well-paid work. It would also be much easier to study or train for a better job.

I’m not convinced that the cost is insurmountable because I believe many estimates fail to fully account for UBI replacing almost all other benefits, reduced administration costs when you don’t need to hire people to assess claims and harass claimants, abolition of tax-free thresholds, and counting UBI towards thresholds for higher tax rates so that they are reached sooner, as well as possible adjustments to the tax system if needed.

I do think there are some technical difficulties in setting an appropriate amount. The cost of housing is the major expense for most people, and those who have to pay rent need considerably more than those living with family or partners who are able to partially or fully support them. This is usually dealt with under current systems by having an additional housing benefit based on need. However, having additional benefits based on need would defeat many of the objectives of UBI.

The amount should also be set with the assumption that most will be able to supplement it with earnings most of the time. This doesn’t apply to those with long-term disabilities that prevent them from working or reduce earning capacity. Any additional payments for disabilities would ideally not be based on earnings as this would defeat the objectives (somebody with a disability has to worry about managing to do a little work, in case it leaves them worse off).
Elaedith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2019, 03:27 PM   #127
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,376
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
good question.
Since UBI is supposed to be sufficient to take care of your bare necessities, I would guess that a big chunk of it would have to be used to contribute to the cost of incarceration (but not all).
But I don't think there is a definite opinion on the subject by the proponents of UBI.
Why shouldn't it? Currently, as in "right now," prisoners are charged for nearly EVERYTHING including any tiny little scrap of human contact outside of a crushing system. Phone calls, emails, video chats, junk food... on and on is charged to the prisoner. Families go broke trying to give money to their loved-one who is incarcerated; inmates often go severely into debt, including the ones who get literally pennies per hour of labor (if the state they are housed in even pays them at all).

But, of course, any mention of a UBI wouldn't, you know, actually be universal. Just like the good ole days, slaves today don't count for nuthin' and are just a drain on society.



Originally Posted by portlandatheist View Post
A UBI would pay dividends in ways like you listed and even in other ways we haven't even thought of or can even calculate.
Many current welfare systems disincentivize work. What point would there be in working, even a few hours a week, if it cut into your other benefits?
Bull. ****.
__________________
A government is a body of people usually - notably - ungoverned.
-Shepard Book
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2019, 03:55 PM   #128
Hercules56
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,923
Originally Posted by Agatha View Post
Thank you, that lack of trust in the less fortunate seems to explain it a lot.

And yet, most homeless people would never accept food from people as the risk of tampering is too high - even if the likelihood is low the consequences can be severe (when I worked with homeless people, many had a horror story of adulterated food). Seems to me the lack of trust should go the other way.
I honestly don't see the problem with a large program of generosity that makes sure all Americans have a roof, are fed, get an education, get healthcare, get their basic needs met, BUT also has some accountability and responsibility factored in.

What is the moral argument AGAINST vouchers for food, housing, basic necessities and instead demanding a monthly lump sum of cash to cover ALL needs? Is there one?

I don't see it.
Hercules56 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2019, 03:58 PM   #129
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 44,282
I think there would have to be additional disability benefits on top of the UBI. Being disabled is expensive. So that's one area where gatekeeping would still have to happen.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2019, 04:02 PM   #130
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 44,282
I remember when I was a student, back in the days when student grants were still a thing. My father didn't earn much at all so I got close to the maximum. The paperwork that came with it had the entire thing budgeted in detail, so much for books and so much for laundry and whatever. But it was still folded round a simple cheque for the total amount. I don't know whether the breakdown was meant as assistance to the fresher to let him or her see how much it was reasonable to budget for different items, or what. I didn't pay any attention to it. But a similar approach might be useful with a UBI. Let people see how it's calculated and how much certain things should probably cost someone on a tight budget.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2019, 04:06 PM   #131
Hercules56
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,923
Originally Posted by Agatha View Post
This seems a peculiarly American thing. Benefits (welfare) here in the UK is paid into bank accounts as money. Vouchers for this or that seems to deny agency to people - are Americans seen as that much more untrustworthy in the way they would use their welfare payments?
I think the issue is a lot of Americans, including myself, have seen homeless people take donations of money and misuse it. I have many times been asked for money and offered to buy the person food instead, and they constantly tell me no.

Often times I have given folks money, and rather than walk across the street and buy a hot dog as they said they would, they cross the street....and dissapear.

I also know of a few people who support UBI. They are severely malcontent with their lives and jobs, but of course they have made decisions that have led to their current situations and they show no acknowledgement of such decisions. Instead they blame "the unfairness and unjustness of the system".

I don't feel like giving such folks, free cash. Vouchers to make sure they are fed, clothed and housed? Yes. But not free cash.
Hercules56 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2019, 04:43 PM   #132
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 44,282
If I give a homeless person money, it's theirs to do what they like with it. I understand why homeless people don't want to take food unless maybe they see it bought for them from a shop. There are nasty people out there. And I'm not judging them. I have no idea how I'd handle being in that situation.

I also have no idea how they got into that situation. Not having any money in the first place was probably a lot to do with it. I think a UBI would prevent most people who end up in these dreadful dead-end situations from getting there in the first place. It's a bit much to point out the state that lack of money has reduced someone to and use that as the reason not to give them money.

I accept there would be some people who would taks the money and either misuse it and then be left with no money for basic necessities, or who would simply sit back and exist at that basic level without trying to become economically active and contribute to society. I don't think the existence of a small percentage of people doing that should be allowed to derail what might overall be of great benefit to society. The second group can simply look after themselves, if there aren't many of them who cares? The first group are a problem for society, but I don't think we can actually predict what would happen with these people in the restructured society that would result from the availability of UBI. I suspect a way to handle them would be found. Perhaps for these people the UBI might be converted into vouchers by a court order?

But everyone deserves a decent chance of the dignity of an actual income that they can decide how to budget.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2019, 04:49 PM   #133
Hercules56
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,923
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
If I give a homeless person money, it's theirs to do what they like with it. I understand why homeless people don't want to take food unless maybe they see it bought for them from a shop. There are nasty people out there. And I'm not judging them. I have no idea how I'd handle being in that situation.

I also have no idea how they got into that situation. Not having any money in the first place was probably a lot to do with it. I think a UBI would prevent most people who end up in these dreadful dead-end situations from getting there in the first place. It's a bit much to point out the state that lack of money has reduced someone to and use that as the reason not to give them money.

I accept there would be some people who would taks the money and either misuse it and then be left with no money for basic necessities, or who would simply sit back and exist at that basic level without trying to become economically active and contribute to society. I don't think the existence of a small percentage of people doing that should be allowed to derail what might overall be of great benefit to society. The second group can simply look after themselves, if there aren't many of them who cares? The first group are a problem for society, but I don't think we can actually predict what would happen with these people in the restructured society that would result from the availability of UBI. I suspect a way to handle them would be found. Perhaps for these people the UBI might be converted into vouchers by a court order?

But everyone deserves a decent chance of the dignity of an actual income that they can decide how to budget.
The folks who choose to simply live off UBI and not get a job, don't they owe something back to society? Should we require them to sweep parks, paint fences, mow lawns, rake leaves, do something meaningful?

One thing I never hear UBI-supporters discuss is the value of work. Working to earn one's pay, has value. Most humans need work and like work. I'm not talking soul-sucking work like sitting behind a computer for 50 hours a week, but something that feels like a contribution. I just hate the idea of giving people $12,000 a year or more, no strings attached. Seems so irresponsible.
Hercules56 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2019, 05:01 PM   #134
MinnesotaBrant
Illuminator
 
MinnesotaBrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,716
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
That's true. However UBI also spreads what is available for said services across the entire population. The rationale works if there is a complex bureocracy to determine who needs what and a large enough part of the populace is a net reciever of aid with comparably few contributing to it.

I sincierly doubt this is remotely true anywhere in the world.

McHrozni
I think Finland has this. Taxes are high and they are fairly anti-immigrant on the other hand. I will say that I think that Finlanders are probably among the most intelligent productive people on the Earth. They have to be to have universal basic income. I am not sure we are smart enough. It for sure is enough to live on too.
__________________
Formerly known as MNBrant.

Last edited by MinnesotaBrant; 24th November 2019 at 05:04 PM.
MinnesotaBrant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2019, 05:04 PM   #135
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 15,177
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
I honestly don't see the problem with a large program of generosity that makes sure all Americans have a roof, are fed, get an education, get healthcare, get their basic needs met, BUT also has some accountability and responsibility factored in.
Why?

I don't see any benefit in using additional tax payers' money to ensure that those who get money from the government spend it "wisely".

It would make the USA a communist dictatorship.

Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
What is the moral argument AGAINST vouchers for food, housing, basic necessities and instead demanding a monthly lump sum of cash to cover ALL needs? Is there one?

I don't see it.
There is nothing wrong with providing a UBI via a card that can only be used to buy food, pay rent and utilities etc. Some people would benefit greatly from this restriction.

The moral argument against it is that you would be subjecting the entire country to something that is only needed by a few (although wealthy people would have no trouble using up their UBI on "necessities").

The practical argument against it is the cost of the scheme (as I already pointed out).

Ultimately it should be up to the individual to make decisions about their life and not some "benevolent" dictator.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2019, 05:07 PM   #136
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 15,177
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
The folks who choose to simply live off UBI and not get a job, don't they owe something back to society? Should we require them to sweep parks, paint fences, mow lawns, rake leaves, do something meaningful?
No. They are not the property of the wealthy.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

Last edited by psionl0; 24th November 2019 at 05:18 PM.
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2019, 05:13 PM   #137
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,597
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
I just hate the idea of giving people $12,000 a year or more, no strings attached. Seems so irresponsible.
Really for many people in America it is going to need to be considerably more than that to cover basic living expenses. Rents, utilities, foods, soap, whatever.

For many people a car is a necessary basic need.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2019, 05:14 PM   #138
MinnesotaBrant
Illuminator
 
MinnesotaBrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,716
I just read about Finlands UBI experiment and apparently it didn't make people any more or any less likely to work. The money was given to people regardless of whether they had money. Its kind of like, If I got a check for 560 from the govt I would probably not quit my job. On a positive note it might cause some people to stop moonlighting opening up more jobs to people who are long term unemployed.
__________________
Formerly known as MNBrant.
MinnesotaBrant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2019, 05:22 PM   #139
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 44,282
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
No. They are not the property of the wealthy.

Exactly that. No. The whole entire point is that there are no strings attached. That everybody stops being so bloody judgemental about what other people choose to do with what is theirs. As someone else said, micromanagement of people's spending decisions turns the country into a dictatorship, even if it is a communist one.

You leave people alone. Most people will get jobs to improve their standard of living, afford more luxurious food, clothes, accommodation, leisure pursuits and so on. Some people will become self-employed, either running a business that employs others or being a sole trader either in the ordinary way or as an artist or craftsman. Some people will choose to spend a lot of time on a big project, maybe writing the great 21st century novel or inventing a time machine. And maybe some of these projects will come to nothing but maybe some genius results will emerge from some of them.

And that's only the start. I didn't go into caring responsibilities, children and the elderly and so on. But basically you don't look at what someone has decided to do with their time and say "go rake leaves instead". Are you getting an idler off his backside to get some healthy exercise, or are you stopping someone painting the next Mona Lisa, or are you preventing a mother caring for her children?

If enough people decide to become freeloaders the entire system won't work. So forget it. But freedom, you know, that great American dream and great American virtue, is supposed to be the entire point. I find it really really weird that it's Americans mainly who want to curtail that freedom by micromanaging the activities and spending of people whose choices they don't approve of.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2019, 05:25 PM   #140
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 44,282
I'm not sure why a car is a necessity, other than to go and buy stuff you need. But there are other ways to enable people to do that than providing every individual with their own personal vehicle.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2019, 05:27 PM   #141
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,597
Gotta find a way to keep Nazis from getting the UBI.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2019, 05:28 PM   #142
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,597
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I'm not sure why a car is a necessity, other than to go and buy stuff you need. But there are other ways to enable people to do that than providing every individual with their own personal vehicle.
Rural poor needs a car or horse buggy.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2019, 05:36 PM   #143
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,597
Access to high speed internet is now a basic human necessity and it is expensive to get it to the rural poor.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2019, 05:36 PM   #144
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 15,177
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I'm not sure why a car is a necessity, other than to go and buy stuff you need. But there are other ways to enable people to do that than providing every individual with their own personal vehicle.
I assume that William is assuming that Hercules56 would argue that a car is not a necessity so one shouldn't be able to buy one with their UBI.

For many, a car is a necessity. There are lots of places that are plagued with long distances and poor public transport. For example, in one of the jobs that I have had, I had to travel 20 km to my place of work at 3:30 AM each morning - a time when there was no public transport at all. (Public transport back home would have involved two busses, two trains and two hours!). Were I to use taxis, it would have eaten up more than half my pay.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2019, 05:41 PM   #145
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 15,921
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I'm not sure why a car is a necessity, other than to go and buy stuff you need. But there are other ways to enable people to do that than providing every individual with their own personal vehicle.
You named one. Many people also need a car to get to work. And doctors. Etc. Alternatives really depend on the specific situation; in many places in the USA, especially rural, there may be no other practical choice.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2019, 05:53 PM   #146
MinnesotaBrant
Illuminator
 
MinnesotaBrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,716
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
You named one. Many people also need a car to get to work. And doctors. Etc. Alternatives really depend on the specific situation; in many places in the USA, especially rural, there may be no other practical choice.
Could have universal transport. Right now my clients who work either take the bus, have a car, or use metro mobility. For yard work or snow shoveling a lot of those jobs will pick you up if you are reliable. The problem with relying on cars solely for transportation is that there are a lot of people who work who should be driving on the road with other people, plus its a huge chunk of cash
__________________
Formerly known as MNBrant.

Last edited by MinnesotaBrant; 24th November 2019 at 05:57 PM.
MinnesotaBrant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2019, 05:56 PM   #147
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 52,571
Originally Posted by MinnesotaBrant View Post
Could have universal transport
Which would cost more than universal basic income to implement, really.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2019, 05:59 PM   #148
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 44,282
If you need a car to get to work you have a job and an income over and above the UBI with which to fund your transport. You do not need to factor the cost of a car into the UBI for that reason. If someone is living purely off the UBI, why do they need to go anywhere?

UBI is enough money for the basics. The only reason you need transport included with this is that you need to travel to be able to acquire the basics. There are other ways to do that than paying for every individual to have their own personal vehicle. Indeed, it sounds like a business opportunity for someone.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 24th November 2019 at 06:01 PM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2019, 06:01 PM   #149
MinnesotaBrant
Illuminator
 
MinnesotaBrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,716
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Which would cost more than universal basic income to implement, really.
I think we already have it here in America. Its just not centralized. We have cars, buses, metro mobility, Uber and Lyft. I am not saying make it free; just subsidized. People living on government assistance get out often walking or busing. Staying home all day watching TV is not a healthy lifestyle.

Finlands basic income results. Actually I understand that you really don't need to work there if you don't want to anyway and its a lot more than 560 euros more like 800.

https://www.thersa.org/discover/publ...hoCk_cQAvD_BwE
__________________
Formerly known as MNBrant.

Last edited by MinnesotaBrant; 24th November 2019 at 06:52 PM.
MinnesotaBrant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2019, 06:40 PM   #150
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 15,177
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
If you need a car to get to work you have a job and an income over and above the UBI with which to fund your transport. You do not need to factor the cost of a car into the UBI for that reason. If someone is living purely off the UBI, why do they need to go anywhere?

UBI is enough money for the basics. The only reason you need transport included with this is that you need to travel to be able to acquire the basics. There are other ways to do that than paying for every individual to have their own personal vehicle. Indeed, it sounds like a business opportunity for someone.
Am I reading you wrong or are you backtracking?

You have previously argued that somebody should not have to give an account of how they spend their UBI but now you appear to be arguing that a motor vehicle or expenses associated with it should be blocked from the UBI.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2019, 06:50 PM   #151
MinnesotaBrant
Illuminator
 
MinnesotaBrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,716
Originally Posted by Agatha View Post
Thank you, that lack of trust in the less fortunate seems to explain it a lot.

And yet, most homeless people would never accept food from people as the risk of tampering is too high - even if the likelihood is low the consequences can be severe (when I worked with homeless people, many had a horror story of adulterated food). Seems to me the lack of trust should go the other way.
I see people giving half eaten food to people with placards all the time always getting a thank you from them. The thing that bothers me these days is the trend for people to bring out their whole families to the spot to beg. I never tend to give money to people on the street because I need it for myself but I do bring myself to look at them as I pass. I understand from talking to them that a look is appreciated.
__________________
Formerly known as MNBrant.
MinnesotaBrant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2019, 07:02 PM   #152
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 11,997
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Am I reading you wrong or are you backtracking?

You have previously argued that somebody should not have to give an account of how they spend their UBI but now you appear to be arguing that a motor vehicle or expenses associated with it should be blocked from the UBI.
No, I believe Rolfe was only arguing that the expense of a private vehicle shouldn't be a factor in determining how much UBI would be provided. If a person decided to spend their money on a personal vehicle, that would be their choice.
Babbylonian is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2019, 07:07 PM   #153
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 64,658
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
The UBI has no strings attached and there are no necessary conditions to receive it (if I understand correctly).

Would that mean that a jailed or imprisoned person also continues to receive UBI?
Of course.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something.
- Randall Munroe
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2019, 07:14 PM   #154
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 44,282
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Am I reading you wrong or are you backtracking?

You have previously argued that somebody should not have to give an account of how they spend their UBI but now you appear to be arguing that a motor vehicle or expenses associated with it should be blocked from the UBI.

Sigh. Someone suggested that a motor vehicle was an essential item, the cost of which should be factored into the UBI. I was disputing that on the grounds that having a motor vehicle would only be necessary for someone subsisting entirely on the UBI for the purpose of travelling to purchase the necessities of life. And that this could be achieved in ways which did not involve giving every individual in the country enough money to purchase and run their own personal motor vehicle.

You have to decide what are the necessities that the UBI should pay for. Food for a plain basic diet, simple basic (but warm) accommodation (including power for lighting and cooking), and clothes and some basic household items. If we have these things, we can live. These are the costs that the UBI should cover. The only remaining question is how these necessities get into the aforesaid accommodation. I do not belive it is necessary to increase everybody's UBI by enough to buy and run a car to achieve that.

You may need a car to get to work. Fine, you have work. You are not surviving on just the UBI. There's your money for the car. You may want a car for social and leisure activities. Fine, get a job and earn the money for one.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2019, 07:17 PM   #155
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 15,177
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
No, I believe Rolfe was only arguing that the expense of a private vehicle shouldn't be a factor in determining how much UBI would be provided. If a person decided to spend their money on a personal vehicle, that would be their choice.
In an ideal world, the UBI wouldn't be based on what people spend their money on. Assuming that there is an inverse relationship between UBI and the number of people seeking additional employment, the UBI should be set at the level that just ensures that we don't create any labour shortages (which would be inflationary).

That is the long term goal. The UBI would probably be a lot less than this for quite a while.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2019, 07:23 PM   #156
MinnesotaBrant
Illuminator
 
MinnesotaBrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,716
What if someone needed a ride to get to their AA meeting to help keep them from drinking. Or a doctor apt that the person doesn't have a ride to. A car maybe if they can handle it. But providing a ride service could be another option in addition to UBI
__________________
Formerly known as MNBrant.
MinnesotaBrant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2019, 07:24 PM   #157
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 44,282
Of course costs vary by area, but there is a tendency for things to even out. Rent in the city may be more expensive, but there will be ample opportunities to shop around for cheap quality food and other essentials within easy walking distance. Transport may be problematic out in the sticks, but on the other hand rents might be cheap enough to be able to spend some money on transport (although probably not buy your own car). As I said, there could be business opportunities there.

But people have absolute freedom to choose what to do. Live in the sticks and want a car to get around? Get a job. Want to cut transport costs? Maybe look at moving into town. Oh and get a job. Want to spend two years writing the next great American Novel? Well work out where you can do that with the money you get from the UBI and get yourself organised.

This proposal isn't intended to allow everyone to sit back and live as they are currently living but without having to work. It's expected that most people are going to work to supplement the UBI. For the people who aren't doing that for whatever reason, some adjustments may be necessary. Just, a hell of a lot less traumatic adjustments than you'd have to make if you wanted or were forced to live without earned income under the present arrangements.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2019, 07:28 PM   #158
MinnesotaBrant
Illuminator
 
MinnesotaBrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,716
Play video games whatever heh. Work is getting more desirable then is was in the past in some areas but there are plenty of areas in the US where you will do better 'not working' than working. For instance, I worked after I got kicked off of disability, I made less working then people who were on disability. However, not everybody is always 'able' to work, for whatever reason.
__________________
Formerly known as MNBrant.

Last edited by MinnesotaBrant; 24th November 2019 at 07:31 PM.
MinnesotaBrant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2019, 07:35 PM   #159
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,597
Cellphone and service is a basic human necessity. It has to be included.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2019, 08:00 PM   #160
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 44,282
Possibly. It's not that expensive anyway. I'm inclined to agree with that.

Of course this is all on average. Prices and rents and so on vary. Some places will have advantages in some respects, others in others. Nobody should be expecting to go to the government and say, it isn't possible both to eat and to have a mobile phone on what you're giving me, give me more. We're talking about what items we feel should be affordable on the UBI, but it's then up to the person to figure out the budget. That is if, for some reason, they are intending to rely solely on the UBI. This isn't something that would be generally encouraged, although it has to be possible.

I think Psion is right that the scheme would have to start at a level substantially under real subsistence level for a number of reasons, including that it would be too disruptive to change the system all at once. So you'd start maybe on Alaska level, and while the UBI was low you'd still have to have traditional social security like unemployment benefits on top. But as the level rose and people adjusted you'd start to get a feel for what's actually possible on the UBI and how to move to a pure UBI with only disability benefits being retained on a "according to need" basis.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 24th November 2019 at 08:01 PM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:56 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.