[deciplex]

> If giving people in poverty money was the fix, we would be done.

No, we wouldn't, because we don't do that.

> The system right now incentivizes people to stay in poverty. The "cliff effect", where government benefits decrease faster than gains in earnings, keeps many people from getting out.

Basic income avoids this utterly.

[efriese]

>No, we wouldn't, because we don't do that. Yes we do. What do you consider EIC to be?

>Basic income avoids this utterly. Not quite. If you give it to everyone the individual amount will be lower. $1k a month won't even make a dent. It would need to be closer to $3k a month to get close to the combined benefits people can get. That's around $900B a year.

[runj__]

>EIC

EIC is the mother of "strings attached", you have to have a job in order to earn that money. Poor people don't have jobs and if they do they're afraid they'll lose them at a moment's notice.

>It would need to be closer to $3k a month to get close to the combined benefits people can get.

For $1k you can buy a house in the middle of nowhere and not work, anything more than that is just "luxury". I'm an adult living in a city (buying insanely priced food) and I don't spend much more than that (other than rent).

[efriese]

You don't have to have a job, you have to earn money. Those are two different things. Begging is a form of income. I think your view of "luxury" is somewhat different than most people. Most people in poverty live in cities with high cost of living. Relying on them to make the most of that money by moving out of cities isn't likely to happen. They could already do that today and don't.

[mrow84]

They don't because they need to earn money, and to earn money you have to go where jobs are - cities. With basic income you wouldn't so people would be incentivised to move to lower cost areas.