I still don't see why this should be universal. It's a nice slogan but it's not unreasonable to have a cutoff.
It's an efficiency.
You can claw back from folks who don't need it at tax time.
1. Some people on disability need far more than any reasonable UBI would provide
2. SNAP, Social Security, Medicaid: Debt is an issue here. Even if you shield UBI payments from bankruptcy, that would still require those with large debt burdens to declare bankruptcy. Libertarians will say that choosing to starve rather than file bankruptcy is a valid life choice, but proponents of the mentioned entitlement programs will probably disagree.
> 1. Some people on disability need far more than any reasonable UBI would provide
Is that due to medical needs? Because if so, that would seem to be a job not for UBI but for a proper medical system, which this country is also woefully lacking.
> 2. SNAP, Social Security, Medicaid: Debt is an issue here. Even if you shield UBI payments from bankruptcy, that would still require those with large debt burdens to declare bankruptcy. Libertarians will say that choosing to starve rather than file bankruptcy is a valid life choice, but proponents of the mentioned entitlement programs will probably disagree.
While true, and I agree that it would have to be shielded from bankruptcy...
Gallup found that voters who identify as libertarians ranged from 17 to 23% of the American electorate. However, a 2014 Pew Poll found that 23% of Americans who identify as libertarians have little understanding of libertarianism.
At that point we're saying libertarians are the "10th dentist who hates Colgate."
While I appreciate their principled stance today, I'm confident that given the choice to cash their UBI check or starve, they'll be the first ones in line at the bank.
> Is that due to medical needs? Because if so, that would seem to be a job not for UBI but for a proper medical system, which this country is also woefully lacking.
First of all, you suggested eliminating (among other things) medicaid in favor of UBI.
Secondly, define "medical needs" if you are mentally incapable of managing your life, then someone has to care for you in a non-medical manner. As an extreme case, there are people who, if you walk up to them and say "please give me all your money," they will ... give you all their money.
Medicaid is a pretty predatory program in its implementation. It provides the bare minimum of care and comes after your personal effects to try and pay for it - for those over 55, states are required by law to recover whatever they spend on you, and they put a lien on your house. [1]
This serves to lock in systemic inequalities by taking away the inheritance from poor children while wealthy folks see their estate tax burdens removed or eliminated - it's a regressive tax on the poorest.
The program is an atrocity. It deserves to be nuked from orbit and replaced with something humane. It's only one step above "just let them die at the entrance to the hospital."
There's two ways to move forward if you choose to eliminate Medicaid. You either take a portion of the UBI payments and purchase private care, or you expand Medicare to, well, All.
> Secondly, define "medical needs" if you are mentally incapable of managing your life, then someone has to care for you in a non-medical manner. As an extreme case, there are people who, if you walk up to them and say "please give me all your money," they will ... give you all their money.
I do actually consider those to be medical needs but understand the point of contention there.
Libertarians would probably say "maybe" and "no" respectively, while others are more likely to say "no" and "yes".
Personal responsibility and freedom imply the freedom to be irresponsible and starve. Lots of people feel icky about that.
Completely agree. Means-test the taxation, not the handout.
If rich people are getting the handout and don't need it, adjust tax to offset the handout with a phaseout.
We have a well developed process/venue to handle fairness of taxation - best place for means-testing.
If you set the cutoff threshold high, then you're barely saving any money and end up spending a lot more on the bureaucracy than you'd save. On the flip side, if it's anywhere close to the income of a middle-class person then you could get an effect where earning more money makes you worse off.
Of course you can taper it off instead of making it a sudden cut-off, but that makes the bureaucracy even bigger.
Say you send everyone a check, adjust income tax so it washes out at something like 2x or 3x the base rate. No extra bureaucracy because your tax authority already has to to that, and at the same time you can same money on administration of a bunch of current programs (and get rid of them). Note that it clearly doesn't replace all programs. But UBI + universal health care of some sort would sure make a dent (US specific).
There are valid critiques of UBI's viability but universality isn't one of them.