[stakecounter]

I think your parent post's implication may be that those receiving UBI who are on specific government programs would not responsibly budget the right amount of money to the right need, and that there will still be cases where people have run out of money and need the same safety nets as before. If someone (or their children) is starving to death, or in need of urgent medical care, are you going to tell them that they should've budgeted better?

[starpilot]

By that reasoning, direct cash disbursement charities like GiveDirectly would fail miserably. But they've been shown to work extremely well. People in general understand how to allocate their own money better than the government does.

[RhysU]

> People in general understand how to allocate their own money better than the government does.

Mwuh ha ha! Then why levy taxes for anything?!

[AnthonyMouse]

The people receiving government assistance are not expected to be the same people paying net taxes to fund it.

Although the existing system is so asinine that sometimes they are, which is just another reason to replace it.

[scotty79]

> Then why levy taxes for anything?!

Because people owning tanks and bombs want to be paid for not using them.

[closeparen]

Knowing how best to allocate money != having enough of it.

[dragonwriter]

Internalizing externalities.

[DougN7]

“People in general” don’t need UBI. The exceptions are why the safety nets exist.

[_fq4v]

Under a traditional UBI system, most people won't get money from the goverment. A UBI as the libertarians described it is basically a negative income tax. If your job pays $20k/year and the UBI level is $10k/yr, for example, then you will not receive anything. However, if your job pays $5k/year, and the UBI is $10k/yr, you receive $5k a year.

[graylights]

If a person can't take care of themself then a social worker should be the safety net. Adult protective services should step in and emergency assistance could be granted. But people with patterns of mismanagement should have a guardianship assigned.

With guardianship that UBI could be directed to an organization to provide that budget management. They can issue a food stamp card, housing assistance, etc. That management could be a government agency or privatized. If privatized it would have to be regulated as a fidicuary.

[AnthonyMouse]

> I think the your parent post's implication may be that those receiving UBI who are on specific government programs would not responsibly budget the right amount of money to the right need, and that there will still be cases where people have run out of money and need the same safety nets as before. If someone (or their children) is starving to death, or in need of urgent medical care, are you going to tell them that they should've budgeted better?

None of these programs actually prevent that. If someone desperate for a job throws a dinner party to try to network and the guests eat weeks worth of their food, they starve before the next allocation whether the food was bought with food stamps or money. Anyone who wants to convert food stamps to dollars can find a little old lady, offer to do her grocery shopping and then buy the food with food stamps and pocket her cash. If the power fails and all your new food spoils, you're not "allowed" to resell your housing subsidy by subletting for a week to cover the replacement cost.

All the restrictions do is cause inefficiency. If someone wants to eat beans instead of steak or even just go hungry some days because they want to save the money for college or a down payment on a house, who are we to judge?

[extralego]

That is not the problem.

To me, it seems important to tread with humbleness here because UBI is not a product of modern science. We are not the first to consider it, and it’s never been considered quite an acceptable solution. Why is that?

The problem is, as often with economics, a problem with value and it’s ways of fluctuating across geography, networks, business and social structures in a matter of literally no time at all. Time is merely fuel to the fire.

Social programs are created by a government in the sense of a government that is of the people. Governments are not inherently just rulers of the land. They are ideally institutions built by people for the purpose of maintaining a state of civility and addressing common concern that might undermine that state of civility.

Social programs, or safety nets, serve a very specific purpose: to maintain a floor of minimum dignity (or less) considered acceptible in the sought civil state. If this is defined in terms of money, that level of dignity is then held victim to the precarity of value in a capitalist society; and that is not a floor I would be willing to touch with a ten foot pole; certainly no dignified person would expect another to either.

With commodities necessary to survive, it’s obvious how this can go wrong. We are talking about food and shelter here. Social housing is well-proven and extremely efficient. As it stands, masses of people in the US can’t afford housing at their current wage.

The best argument for UBI is as another economic stimulus, which is absolutely needed to prolong the final crash. The question seems to be who is included in the beneficiaries. So, like much of this type of thing, if we don’t agree to collectively give a shit about other people in the first place, it’s not worth wasting time over.

[tathougies]

> certainly no dignified person would expect another to either.

Um... what? The government quantifies exactly how much it will spend on social welfare programs each year. Simply dividing the budget out by the number of people enrolled (also available from the government) paints a very clear picture of how much 'civil dignity' is worth.

[scotty79]

> They are ideally institutions built by people for the purpose of maintaining a state of civility and addressing common concern that might undermine that state of civility.

I agree but they are built by specific people - military. The state of civility is not a goal by itself just the best way for the military to get paid for doing nothing of value for the rest of the people, in predictable and stable fashion.

[daveFNbuck]

Are you saying that all social safety nets are bad, or is there something that differentiates UBI from the others?

[_fq4v]

Well, the libertarian argument for a UBI says yes, you ought to tell people they should've budgeted better. Under a universal basic income, everyone would receive exactly how much money they would need to live and a little more. The extra could likely be spent on a budgeting class for those who need it.

Keep in mind, that libertarians are fundamentally against governments telling people how to spend their money. This includes the rich and the poor. The rich should not be told how to spend their money and the poor ought to be given everything they need to survive and not be told how to spend it either. Thus everyone is treated equally in the eyes of the law.