I'm curious how this is of any real value or concern outside the usual "Well because it's MY tax dollars so I should have a say."
Why focus on poor people spending their social welfare when the result will be far less harmful to humanity as a whole than how the rich spend their social welfare?
The superfluous resource consumption by the wealthy, and I include not just the uber wealthy, but also those that can afford to fly around fairly regularly, buy new iPhones every 12-24 months, lease new vehicles ad naseum, is a much more dangerous situation.
If anyone is about to say well they earned their money and the right to spend it how they see fit, come on. It's social welfare that allows their wealth in the first place. It's government subsidized hand me downs from generation to generation. It's not at all acquired by the creation of novel goods and services.
But hey, let's focus on the cost of giving away money to people that will spend it on liquor.
Not on how giving away money to support our wholesale destruction of the environment is going to wreck the species as a whole. There are more immediate impacts to my own pocket book to consider, vis-à-vis the negligible increase to my tax bill!
That's some fine whataboutism, but a poor answer to my relatively straightforward question. Again, every UBI implementation I've ever seen includes basically destroying the existing welfare structure.
If someone blows their UBI due to, not just drugs/alcohol, but just plain old poor finanical management skills, what happens to them?
They've got nowhere to turn for two weeks or more because we tore all that shit up.
The very point is that less people will be in this situation because getting your basic needs met is shown to make your more responsible. Se further up in thread for some of the studies.
If you have no cash, and you've used up the meager funds TANF gives you, there are other programs still available to cover the necessities of life.. SNAP comes to mind, as do overnight shelters. It's not much of a life, but at least you're not out in the cold. A safety net for the safety net if you will.
Okay, now that stuff goes away, and you just get the one (significantly increased, but still, just the one) payout every so often. There is no safety net under the safety net anymore.
Those two stories I see linked reference other countries with radically different cultures. How many studies have been done with families that live in the USA and are subject to its cultural norms? Culture drives spending and expectations.
I say this as someone that thinks UBI is a Great Idea, but this is a question that from what I can tell remains unanswered.
But this is assuming that Basic Income is a solution for the poor. It's not. It's a solution for all of us as it's based on the premise there there will be less work in the future not more.
So We are all going to be poorer so to speak UBI tries to make sure we somehow deal with that.
But this is assuming that Basic Income is a solution for the poor. It's not.
So We are all going to be poorer so to speak UBI tries to make sure we somehow deal with that.
These are contradictory statements.
Any any case, even if true, it just makes my question that much more urgent. You cannot suggest a system that dismantles the existing welfare system without answering the question of what replaces it and if the cracks people will necessarily fall through become bigger or smaller.
I'm curious how this is of any real value or concern outside the usual "Well because it's MY tax dollars so I should have a say."
Why focus on poor people spending their social welfare when the result will be far less harmful to humanity as a whole than how the rich spend their social welfare?
The superfluous resource consumption by the wealthy, and I include not just the uber wealthy, but also those that can afford to fly around fairly regularly, buy new iPhones every 12-24 months, lease new vehicles ad naseum, is a much more dangerous situation.
If anyone is about to say well they earned their money and the right to spend it how they see fit, come on. It's social welfare that allows their wealth in the first place. It's government subsidized hand me downs from generation to generation. It's not at all acquired by the creation of novel goods and services.
But hey, let's focus on the cost of giving away money to people that will spend it on liquor.
Not on how giving away money to support our wholesale destruction of the environment is going to wreck the species as a whole. There are more immediate impacts to my own pocket book to consider, vis-à-vis the negligible increase to my tax bill!