|
Post by mervinswerved on Aug 20, 2021 8:21:22 GMT -5
The motivation for ending UI benefits couldn't *possibly* have been about something other than juicing red state economies, could it?
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Aug 22, 2021 4:02:21 GMT -5
As I said before, one of the basic purposes of unemployment insurance is to buffer the overall economy. When people lose their jobs they stop spending. When they stop spending, businesses stop making money. That makes other people lose their jobs, so the feedback loop can lead to a major depression. The Great Depression of the 1930s is an example of this -- it lasted so long because so many people were out of work that businesses couldn't make any money, which means they couldn't hire people, so people remained out of work.
Unemployment insurance is supposed to cushion that blow. To keep people spending long enough to stop the rest of the economy from crashing from the shock.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Aug 22, 2021 4:06:47 GMT -5
Very few people would argue that unemployment insurance should go forever -- although that actually is the thought behind UBI (universal basic income). The assumption is that most people will want a) to be productive, and b) more than a "basic" income, so they will get jobs if they can. But with UBI retail and services will be relatively safe from recessions. Of course, that safety comes at the cost of higher taxes to pay for the UBI.
|
|
moody
Banned
Posts: 18,679
|
Post by moody on Aug 22, 2021 6:12:42 GMT -5
Very few people would argue that unemployment insurance should go forever -- although that actually is the thought behind UBI (universal basic income). The assumption is that most people will want a) to be productive, and b) more than a "basic" income, so they will get jobs if they can. But with UBI retail and services will be relatively safe from recessions. Of course, that safety comes at the cost of higher taxes to pay for the UBI. we don't have to raise taxes for UBI. How about we audit the military. Bet we can find more than a few billion in savings there.
|
|
|
Post by joetrinsey on Aug 22, 2021 8:14:21 GMT -5
Very few people would argue that unemployment insurance should go forever -- although that actually is the thought behind UBI (universal basic income). The assumption is that most people will want a) to be productive, and b) more than a "basic" income, so they will get jobs if they can. But with UBI retail and services will be relatively safe from recessions. Of course, that safety comes at the cost of higher taxes to pay for the UBI. we don't have to raise taxes for UBI. How about we audit the military. Bet we can find more than a few billion in savings there. I say this as a supporter of UBI... it’s a program that’s far more expensive than our military. Much has been made of all the money spent in Afghanistan, which has been, on average, about $50B per year. That’s enough to give every American adult about $20 per month of a UBI. The entire military budget (which, keep in mind about 1/3 of which is pay and benefits anyway) is $700B. Say we folded the entire military and used it for UBI. You’re talking about something like $250 per month.
|
|
moody
Banned
Posts: 18,679
|
Post by moody on Aug 22, 2021 8:54:27 GMT -5
we don't have to raise taxes for UBI. How about we audit the military. Bet we can find more than a few billion in savings there. I say this as a supporter of UBI... it’s a program that’s far more expensive than our military. Much has been made of all the money spent in Afghanistan, which has been, on average, about $50B per year. That’s enough to give every American adult about $20 per month of a UBI. The entire military budget (which, keep in mind about 1/3 of which is pay and benefits anyway) is $700B. Say we folded the entire military and used it for UBI. You’re talking about something like $250 per month. I have to say I didn't do a whole lot of math. Just off the top of my head, why not make UBI a means-tested benefit?
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Aug 22, 2021 9:10:50 GMT -5
I say this as a supporter of UBI... it’s a program that’s far more expensive than our military. Much has been made of all the money spent in Afghanistan, which has been, on average, about $50B per year. That’s enough to give every American adult about $20 per month of a UBI. The entire military budget (which, keep in mind about 1/3 of which is pay and benefits anyway) is $700B. Say we folded the entire military and used it for UBI. You’re talking about something like $250 per month. I have to say I didn't do a whole lot of math. Just off the top of my head, why not make UBI a means-tested benefit? Because it wouldn't be UBI, then.
|
|
moody
Banned
Posts: 18,679
|
Post by moody on Aug 22, 2021 9:15:15 GMT -5
I have to say I didn't do a whole lot of math. Just off the top of my head, why not make UBI a means-tested benefit? Because it wouldn't be UBI, then. Sorry, MTUBI. Hope that meets your approval. Glad to see you are still focused on the douchiast possible response.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Aug 22, 2021 9:17:37 GMT -5
Because it wouldn't be UBI, then. Sorry, MTUBI. Hope that meets your approval. Glad to see you are still focused on the douchiast possible response. Means testing is bad. Universal programs are good.
|
|
moody
Banned
Posts: 18,679
|
Post by moody on Aug 22, 2021 9:23:34 GMT -5
Sorry, MTUBI. Hope that meets your approval. Glad to see you are still focused on the douchiast possible response. Means testing is bad. Universal programs are good. why?
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Aug 22, 2021 9:30:04 GMT -5
Means testing is bad. Universal programs are good. why? A few different reasons. Means testing creates resentment among several different groups, primarily the people who need the benefit bit make too much money to receive it and the people who don't need the benefits, can't receive the benefit, but are taxes to pay for the benefit. On top of that, means testing creates an administrative burden that is almost always placed on the benefit recipients, meaning some people who qualify for the benefit won't receive it because paperwork and bureaucracy gets in the way. Universal benefits eliminate the administrative burden on the recipients, and create buy-in across the population because everybody receives the benefit equally. If people are worried about rich people getting UBI, The federal government can just get that money back in taxes every year.
|
|
moody
Banned
Posts: 18,679
|
Post by moody on Aug 22, 2021 9:40:33 GMT -5
A few different reasons. Means testing creates resentment among several different groups, primarily the people who need the benefit bit make too much money to receive it and the people who don't need the benefits, can't receive the benefit, but are taxes to pay for the benefit. On top of that, means testing creates an administrative burden that is almost always placed on the benefit recipients, meaning some people who qualify for the benefit won't receive it because paperwork and bureaucracy gets in the way. Universal benefits eliminate the administrative burden on the recipients, and create buy-in across the population because everybody receives the benefit equally. If people are worried about rich people getting UBI, The federal government can just get that money back in taxes every year. well there you go. The federal government can means test by way of taxes.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Aug 22, 2021 9:45:03 GMT -5
A few different reasons. Means testing creates resentment among several different groups, primarily the people who need the benefit bit make too much money to receive it and the people who don't need the benefits, can't receive the benefit, but are taxes to pay for the benefit. On top of that, means testing creates an administrative burden that is almost always placed on the benefit recipients, meaning some people who qualify for the benefit won't receive it because paperwork and bureaucracy gets in the way. Universal benefits eliminate the administrative burden on the recipients, and create buy-in across the population because everybody receives the benefit equally. If people are worried about rich people getting UBI, The federal government can just get that money back in taxes every year. well there you go. The federal government can means test by way of taxes. That's not means testing, it's raising taxes on the wealthy. It's important that universal benefits are truly universal.
|
|
moody
Banned
Posts: 18,679
|
Post by moody on Aug 22, 2021 9:47:59 GMT -5
well there you go. The federal government can means test by way of taxes. That's not means testing, it's raising taxes on the wealthy. It's important that universal benefits are truly universal. You are disagreeing with my post that I agreed with you in. Perfect mervinswervin. Thanks for the chuckle.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Aug 22, 2021 10:55:18 GMT -5
One of the ways that UBI would be paid for is by reducing current means-tested programs. If you give everybody a sufficient amount of basic money, then you no longer have to have food stamps or housing subsidies or things like that.
It's the same as if you had universal healthcare, you wouldn't also need Medicare and Medicaid.
So the total net cost is lower than the simple calculation of N people x $X, because there are some costs that would be eliminated when you switched over to the new system.
|
|