An Alternative to Welfare
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 сер 2017
- Disclaimer: This interview was produced in 2017 by the Institute For Humane Studies, prior to Students For Liberty's acquisition of Learn Liberty. The opinions of this interviewer are his own and are not that of SFL.
Today’s welfare system discourages aspiring for the American dream. What if we tried a universal basic income instead? For the full interview with Prof. Munger, watch • Political Science, Tru...
SUBSCRIBE: bit.ly/2dUx6wg
LEARN MORE:
Why Libertarians Should Oppose the Universal Basic Income (article): Prof. Bryan Caplan argues against Universal Basic Income in his opening statement in a debate hosted by the Institute for Humane Studies on the subject. econlog.econlib.org/archives/2...
The welfare state is a (bad) polygamist (blog post): Prof. Michael Munger argues that our current welfare system creates a cycle of poverty for many women. www.learnliberty.org/blog/the-...
Milton Friedman - The Negative Income Tax (video): Milton Friedman explains the “negative income tax”. • Milton Friedman - The ...
TRANSCRIPT:
For a full transcript please visit: www.learnliberty.org/videos/an...
LEARN LIBERTY:
Your resource for exploring the ideas of a free society. We tackle big questions about what makes a society free or prosperous and how we can improve the world we live in. Watch more at www.learnliberty.org/.
As someone who use to be on government assistance, I assure you, it's not what people think it is. These systems keep you in poverty because any increase in your income is a cut to your assistance. You basically have to live off less than $1,000 a month in order to keep your "benefits".
or learn to skirt the system (just don't get caught).
A UBI is given to every citizen no matter how rich they are.
yeah and the decrease is usually not proportional to the amount earned (earn $50 from a job? oh I guess you don't need this $1,000.... [obvious exaggeration... or is it?])
Hope you have a great day & Safe Travels!
It’s essentially paying people to stay poor
Milton Friedman proposed Negative Income Tax, not UBI
Zenith crazy how people will prop up Friedman and mlk when they both have clarified they aren’t in support of UBI. Thank you for being a voice of reason.
But Friedman's Negative Income Tax isn't that different from UBI as proposed here and would be a great way to implement it. I therefore think he was justified in referring to Friedman. The problem is many talk about UBI as something ON TOP OF what we are already doing. That is something this presenter and Friedman and I absolutely oppose.
@@darthhodges The difference is the incentive. UBI is basically free money no matter what. While NIT rewards those who work and those who make more money get more money up to a certain threshold called a living wage.
P.S If I remember correctly Milton considered NIT the least of all evils.
P.S2 The way I see it NIT > UBI > Welfare State
@@happy_thinking Upon rewatching this clip I noticed he didn't address how his version of the UBI would address the "cliff" they talked about. I previously saw a clip of Friedman talking about NIT and addressing the cliff and I guess I conflated that with this.
@@happy_thinking I would say NIT > UBI > None > Welfare State
An alternative to welfare: Private charity and mutual-aid societies within an economically free society!!!
There is absolutely nothing the federal government does that helps people, a free market, and free people have a choice, the alternative, which LAZY people dont want is already available, WORK HARD AND BETTER YOURSELF AND FAMILY, absolutely NOTHING in the United States stops people from making the choice to work hard and work towards making themselves a better life!
Joe Mccallum I agree
+++
@SL You wrote: _"An alternative to welfare: Private charity and mutual-aid societies within an economically free society!!!"_
Please point me to examples where private charity consistently moved poor people out of poverty. Not one individual here and there, but something more systematic that lifted many people out of poverty.
You can’t just tell people to work without help
This Is What Happened When Maine Forced Welfare Recipients To Work For Their Benefits ...After forcing these individuals to either work part-time for twenty
hours each week, enroll in a vocational program, or volunteer for a
minimum of twenty-four hours per month, the numbers showed a significant
drop from 12,000 enrollees to just over 2,500.
Nice! thanks for opening the dialog. Food Banks, Public Kitchens, and Food delivery (for the handicapped for example) are the ONLY "free benefits" citizens, CITIZENS, should be given, but they have to ASKED for help. And then lets give that without questioning them. Let the churches handle as much of this as possible. Furthermore, all other free benefits, everything else, should be handled 100% by the churches. If the churches refuse, revoke their tax status. Non-citizens must be questioned on all things, in every aspect, until they are documented as level 1, level 2, or level 3 (where level 3 = full citizenship.)
silkhead44 could you give me the citation for this. I want to use this lore frequently. I agree with the logic 100%.
jfsfrnd oh come on that is like saying how is a single mother making a livable wage from work like 60,000 a year with two or more kids supposed to report taxes, feed kids, and holy crap a 40 minute appointment. God forbid they have to put in a little extra work to get out of poverty. Not to mention is you take the national average for middle class families, it might be less than 60k but regardless the requirements necessary for basic life include some things the middle class does. So the argument based upon how can they keep up is not a valid one, not even close
👀👀👀👀👀👀👀
food stamps should have no requirement : but if you want cash assistance you should have to sign up for job training : the state government doesn't need people to do work for them : they have enough workers
One major advantage I see in Universal Basic Income is we can finally get rid of the shitty minimum wage system.
C'mon guys. Use your heads here and think. He's not saying this is the ideal way to solve the welfare problem. He's saying this way is a more realistic and efficient alternative. This is why he said he's a directionalist. This is about moving the government in a direction where it wastes less money and offers people more freedom. It's not the best way but it's better than what we have. If you're going to spend money, at least don't waste it.
I agree, at least this way the government won't go bankrupt for a few extra years
Pot Head idiot the government already is bankrupt, we have 165+ trillion in debt, 120 trillion in unfunded liabilities, where’s this magical money coming from? Directionalism is just hope for the here and now, as long as the ends justify the means, who cares how authoritarian government gets? Lmao
@@KA-vs7nl the government isnt going to stop wasting our money so they should at least waste less of it, that's all I'm saying
Pot Head give someone an inch, and they’ll take a mile.
Apply that to government, who’s monetary agency relies SOLELY on the Federal Reserve. We need to eliminate the federal reserve first if we want government to stop wasting money.
Pot Head you might find exopolitics really interesting
isgp-studies.com
"An Alternative to Welfare"
"Another Welfare Scheme"
agreed, LR!! thanks for opening this dialog. Food Banks, Public Kitchens, and Food delivery (for the handicapped for example) are the ONLY "free benefits" citizens, CITIZENS, should be given. And lets give that without questioning them. Let the churches handle as much of this as possible. Furthermore, all other free benefits, everything else, should be handled 100% by the churches. If the churches refuse, revoke their tax status. Non-citizens must be questioned on all things, in every aspect, until they are documented as level 1, level 2, or level 3 (where level 3 = full citizenship.)
A much better alternative is to use a local currency, they have been extremely successful at creating jobs, saving local communities. Our privately owned debt money system just does not work very well.
Tweaking the knobs on socialism. "This is directionalist socialism, not destinationalist socialism. That solves the problem, and we get to keep socialism."
Reject socialism.
@rainwolf034 I think your argument about pedophile preachers is spurious. I know the Catholic Church abuses have been very much in the news lately, but in fact, the hold of spiritual or religious devotion is very different than a simple request for assistance, and I don't think you can really make a case that faith-based charities have been more abusive of the poor than government-sponsored charities, such as welfare or food stamps or section 8 housing.
On the more general issue, although I am not in favor of UBI, I do appreciate the argument that trying to force the poor into particular decisions chosen by government has not worked, and cash assistance is more efficient.
@@oricraftoric A UBI is the worst form of welfare as the problem with welfare is people being lazy and finding ways to live off nothing but welfare and of course spending money badly. A UBI makes both of these problems much worse in literally a countless amount of ways.
While welfare is bad a UBI is nothing more than forced welfare on everyone. What happens when people run out of UBI money the first week into a month buy still have kids to feed? Will you point at then on national TV and say, "let them die!!" ?
UBI will not fix anything rather it WILL make things much worse. Inflation will make everyone more poor and there is no such thing as a "closed loop" to stop inflation because inflation is caused mainly by people buying supply, not just printing money. Give people more money to buy stuff and supply shrinks, thus inflation...
UBI is for people that have little to no understanding of economics or history where all UBI's to date have failed... Oddly the supporters of UBI like it that way, being willfully ignorant.
UBI is still a bad idea. Ask anyone on a native reserve.
No, not really. Most the money goes to booze or a truck payment
Unfortunately the reserves are a welfare state the UBI could help prevent
Most reservations don't even have property rights which is the biggest issue.
Also their chief leader receives the money and he distributes it ( who knows how much they are pocketing ) . Some natives actually work 🤯 . Some even buy cars with their money so they can work off the reservation 🤯🤯 . Money doesn't fix all problems but it can give you an opportunity to succeed. I rather put it in the hands of the people rather than the government.
I don't personally know a single person on welfare that doesn't spend their money on tobacco, weed and other non-essentials/luxury items I couldn't afford while establishing myself. (I live in the UK) They seem perfectly content with their lifestyle and don't really seem to pursue anything in life and have little respect for the houses provided by the local council.
The messiest houses Ive visited have been council houses, people who own their own homes tend to more often have clean homes which is interesting because people who work have less time to clean.
I don't think these kinds of people are going to change their lifestyle around just by having more access to money, Its a cultural / social issue. If your raised in a shit hole and are never taught the the principles that make a person a success in the real world then you're destined to fail.
Yup. Sad but true. thanks for opening this dialog: Food Banks, Public Kitchens, and Food delivery (for the handicapped for example) are the ONLY "free benefits" citizens, CITIZENS, should be given. And lets give that without questioning them. Let the churches handle as much of this as possible. Furthermore, all other free benefits, everything else, should be handled 100% by the churches. If the churches refuse, revoke their tax status. Non-citizens must be questioned on all things, in every aspect, until they are documented as level 1, level 2, or level 3 (where level 3 = full citizenship.)
Why should people be forced to give their money to low income family's its not other peoples fault that they can't afford healthcare and food etc if they can't afford it it should teach them a lesson.
It's easy to keep a house clean when you have no time to spend in it. When a person works 16 hours per day for minimum wage what is the point of having anything more than a single bedroom?
Rubber J And wealthy people don't imbibe on tobacco, alcohol or a bit of weed? A bit of judgement going on? The poor engage in something you find distastefull so they're bad overall whereas the wealthy do exactly the same, if not more, and it's just a cute eccentricity.
Dry meme machine This won't work for the children who grow up in these households. Chance equality is essential for optimum liberty and for that you need (state funded) open public facilities and services and some sort of basic direct wealth redistribution.
Some fellow 'libertarians' (as a european id call them liberals) unfortunately are too ignorant or too engaged in clientelism to see this.
So the alternative to welfare is... a different welfare program?
I notice he included Social Security in the programs to be eliminated to pay for Universal Basic Income. So I pay into a system for 47 years to receive $24,00 a year so that I can lose it to receive $12,000 a year in Universal Basic Income. The other $12,000 goes to someone that has never worked their whole life. Does that sound fair to you?
Life's not fair. 🤷♂️
That's not what he was proposing. People can't "cancel" your social security, as you've already payed into the system and the money you gave was legally not given to the state, but "withheld" until you were retired. With this proposal it would phase out all the social security payments and then in 100 or so years you would see that no-one is owed social security money anymore as they received the 12,000 a year their entire life instead of the 24,000 just when they were old.
@@teolechaczynski I hate to break it to you, but there is no savings account with all the money you paid in over the years. What you paid in is gone. It was used to pay the benefits of all the people older than you.
@@midwestron8576 I know, but it is theoretically "withheld", as you will receive all the money you put in inflation adjusted when you're retired so you get everything back.
I was opposed to universal basic income but I had never heard anyone make it a replacement for all other welfare programs. With that condition it's a great idea. If you blow it all on booze and drugs the person who suffers most is you. If you use to it to improve your life and your family you will get the reward of your investment. There is a discussion to be had about how much but the premise, with the aforementioned condition, is better than what we have now.
I just got a promotion that increases my income by 2 and a half times. I have been living in subsidized housing, collecting food stamps, and my wife and children are on Medicaid. Now we have to move and we will lose those benefits. I did the math and I will have the same or slightly less disposable income than before. When you factor in that my employer's health insurance has copays, deductibles, and less than 100% coverage on lots of things I might be significantly worse off. Makes you think, doesn't it?
Do some math to figure out how much money it would cost to pay everyone the same amount & that amount be enough for it support someone not capable of working.
$1000 per month × 320 million × 12 months = $3,84 trillion. That is the entire national budget.
Maybe it could be reduced for children? Still taxes would need to double to turn around and give the money back.
@@MarkProffitt it would still not work because the State always takes around 17% of the national GDP in taxes regardless of tax rates. The only way to sustain UBI is to produce more but I don't see that happening in a social system that benefits the lazy at the expense of net tax payers.
It's a cultural issue. We need to break the cycle of dependance and entitlement from the State.
My disagreement with him is he said Milton Friedman was for UBI. Milton Friedman was certainly NOT for UBI, but rather Negative income tax.
@@jebremocampo9194 The two concepts COULD be implemented identically or they could be implemented in completely different ways. It makes sense to distinguish, though since UBI is often used to refer to the kind of welfare program Friedman wanted to eliminate and not what the presenter is endorsing here.
Conceptually it is good idea, or at least moving in the right direction: trying to improve or align incentives, and do it in a way that is far more efficient than the current process.
On your health care issue, if you were going this far with UBI and getting rid of medicaid, then you need complete overhaul of government sponsored monopoly/cartels for health care insurance and hospital care. direct primary care, hospitals owned by physicians like surgery center in OK as example, must be allowed everywhere. eliminate the cap on medical savings accounts. the government and insurance cartels need to be completely removed from healthcare and replaced with market based approach.
also, you have to dismantle the current public education monopoly and abolish he federal department of education. people with some basic skills, and hopefully valuable skills, are in a better position to make that leap from low skilled jobs to entry level career positions, wherever they choose.
3 questions - 1. Wouldn't a universal basic income just cause inflation to go up by whatever percentage would make the income amount become worthless because prices would have to go up proportionally to make up for the tax that pays for it? 2. Do any countries actually do this? 3. Don't we already have UBI for people over 65? Social Security? What about all the people who are saying that program is unsustainable?
Are you talking about in the United States? What's the difference between that and Social Security?
1.) Inflation would remain the same because the money the government is outputting would remain the same
UBI doesn't affect inflation. Inflation is good, a symptom of economic growth, when it's truly a reflection of a growing economy, so usually ~2% annually. We want the money supply to grow at a similar pace to the economy, so businesses experience increased profits, and respond by increasing production (jobs+wages).
High inflation is problematic, say 10%+ annually. It's a symptom of government printing money, in effect growing the money supply, to service its debt and obligations.
Hyperinflation is typically considered 50%+ inflation per month. It severely disrupts economic activity by destroying the purchasing power of peoples' savings (aka capital). Hyperinflation is typically caused by the government creating money to service debt, and often leads to recession, which may degenerate into depression.
Both recession and depression are economic contractions caused by a shortfall of consumption to supply. This cycle is characterized by businesses cutting production (jobs) to offset the loss from a shortfall in sales (consumption), which in turn, reduces the number of potential consumers (demand). This cycle can spiral in a negative feedback loop until the market economy is a shadow of its former self and the planned economy. Often this scenario is worsened by a government creating money to service debt, for example, Greece.
In Denmark we have a universal basic income ... you have to be "available to the job market" which means you are obligated to search for a job..
No a universal basic income would not cause inflation by the same amount. I lot of what is bought here is not made here because of trade. Inflation is caused by more money being printed.
Just so everyone is aware, a $12,000 UBI to the 325 million people in America would cost $3.9 trillion (with a T). The Federal government is projected to collect $3.5T, the States $1.7T, and Local governments $1.4T.
Kevin Bryer
How much would a lifetime $1,000 per month UBI for every American citizen from 21 years to life cost?
Well, the data I could find sets the cutoff at 19. The 0-19 year age group is 27% of the population, or 87.75 million. So, 20+ equals 237.25 million people, for a a total of $2.847T annually. The average life expectancy rounds up to 80, for a total 60 year income of $720k.
If it where actually implemented, it is more likely to follow the poverty threshold, which starts at around $12k per indivual, and adds about $4k per person per household. 2016 shows about 126million households, with 2.58 residents per household. That would give each household $18,320, for a total of about $2.3T annually.
There are a lot of moving parts that affect viability. First and foremost is whether the government is best vehicle for such safety nets (dubious at best). On the other hand, when better sources of such safety nets fail, nets will be extracted anyway, only zombie style. With the complete elimination of the existing tax structure for a FairTax structure, a complete replacement of all existing entitlement/welfare schemes, appropriate infrastructure, a universal civil service system, and Constitutional protections from regular tinkering with the rate, it may be workable, as much for its zombie insurance factor as for the safety net.
jfsfrnd
Probably all forms of poverty relief. Like for food (ex. SNAP), shelter (ex. Section 8), and medicine (ex. Medicaid).
@@marlonmoncrieffe0728 Or reality says about 1/4th the cost of a UBI..... Did you even try and look up how much we spend on welfare before saying that? If a UBI for people 18 and above is around 3 trillion and the US brings in 3.4 trillion you basically said welfare alone in the US eats our entire tax revenues...
@@FEV369
I never said that-'basically' or otherwise.
I remember in an interview Shark Tank host Kevin O'leary said the same thing as a way to make the standing Canadian welfare system more efficient. I could not find that interview again, but it is great to find this interview with that same premise, but more articulated. I agree that is the easiest and fastest way to reform our welfare now, just get everything together and just make it a single simple payment on a monthly basis. It is also great that he noted the Libertarian view that must be put on this Directional vs. Destinational.
I believe Hayek spoke about some sort of basic income as well, with the idea that we protect the free market from coercion. People being part of that free market also require a means against coercion. With a basic income min wage should also be abolished.
This would still impair the incentives to generate wealth, as does our current welfare system
There are ways to encourage wealth through an UBI verse the current system. For instance every $2 you earn over $1k per month you receive $1 less in benefits. This will cap out the UBI once you reach a modest wage. This way you don't have to worry about reaching a cliff where you lose all your benefits.
How does that work out with inflation? Overtime either policy needs to be changed or let the UBI become meaningless. What incentive would there be to save money if you are guaranteed UBI? How should UBI be adjusted to fluxes in health costs and other markets?
Set it to a certain percentage of the poverty level. You levy a tax similar to the payroll tax, but on all individuals including those over $100k. Make a cap of something like 15%. Determine the payout at the beginning of each year. A certain percent of the poverty level or an average portion of the amount collected in payroll taxes the previous year, whichever is lower.
This way you adjust the costs upwards for inflation and make it difficult to go over budget.
A lot of the monitoring can be done automatically through payroll, and searching for discrepancies. Most companies are required to report a person's earnings. So you will always have a rough estimate of the bulk of the working populations income. You would need the people who manage a business to file an estimated income like they currently do on a quarterly basis.
By requiring a person to file monthly, it helps deter people from using the program and helps find dead people.
Commies: Giv mi ubi
You would have to spend 5 to 10 yrs fighting the insurance company. I’ve seen it before. That’s why it’s good to have a safety net in a society that works .
Stop rewarding people for not having a plan for their life.
Have a plan if you plan to have!
“The poor people will spend the money in wrong things”🤔 May be is where education fails too🤔
The reason some people hate welfare is because we don't want people who didn't earn their money to live as comfortably as those who had to work hard for it. I think the best solution would be to provide the BARE essentials while keeping a general discomfort, so as to give an incentive to people to improve their situation. So the state might set up food banks where people without income can get free food (only boring basics, no beer or cigarettes or unhealthy snacks). The state could also set up homeless centers where people can go sleep. These homeless centers would have no TVs or entertainment. Electricity and water would be rationed. People's essential needs would be met, but their everyday life would be so boring and uninspiring that they might find job-hunting a nice way of spending their time. As for people with disabilities with no family to fall back on, we would have to provide some medical care and some extra-comfort, but I think the number of people in these conditions pales compared to the people on welfare who are fit for work and choose not to for various reasons.
so what would you do to the handicapped who are unable to work?
Why does the UN consider internet to be a right if electricity and homes aren't always considered rights? If living somewhere with a mailable address was made compulsory like education then every homeless person might have a house with a mailbox, meaning there's more mailboxes for the IRS to send tax forms to and thus everyone gets to pay taxes meaning more revenue for the government.
Good points 👍
big corporations are not for your solution when you give people only food and bed then consumption drops and that is not in their interest....
@@angelaj8958 everyone can work. I know I blind man who takes 2 busses and a train to work. He makes more money than most
I am by no means an economist. My expertise is medicine. I do have one question that perplexes me with this video. If everyone increases their income by universal income standard, warm things increase proportionally to the influx of the new revenue within the social system? So, won't this negate the value of the universal income?
I assume your question is about inflation and in this scenario the answer is NO. Why? Because you don't print new money you are using existing money in a more efficient way. Just by removing the bureaucracy(middle man) you save a lot of money thus increasing how much recources everybody gets and there is an extra benefit here, if there is no bureaucracy all these people will have to do something else which will be very likely more productive and beneficial to everybody else.
P.S If it is not clear the idea of UBI usually means removing all sorts of (social)services that are paid with taxes and giving that money directly to the citizens with no constraints.
Or the government could just stop taking people's taxes and giving it to other people, and let people help themselves.
Wow and would you look at that. A rapid rise in crime and squalor lowering property values. Shanty towns forming throughout America and an enormous increase in police budgets and prison spending. Old people dying in the streets and in their homes. Small malnourished children joining oppressive and dangerous gangs to feed their families. Are you for small government or not? Because your solution will create an even worse police state than we already have.
@@rsync9490 oh you mean like is already happening even with taxes and all these programs? Just look at California... The homeless lines the streets and they have the most handouts. Proof that welfare doesn't work.
@@rsync9490 don't be silly, it wouldn't instantly look like California
It's redistribution of wealth. No dude.
The rich like taxes you moron.
This is supposed to be instead of unemployment benifits from the goverment, social security or any other payments and their agencies.
This is the first rational argument for Universal Basic Income.
I'm not 100% convinced, but this is a very interesting way of putting it.
The sad problem government faces ironically is that by simplifying the bureaucracy and saving money, that probably just decreases the jobs available in government therefore less money to people who take up these positions. Governments purpose is to spend money on creating jobs, even inefficiently if required.
I think a good idea, if you attempt to move towards a market approach to welfare, is to roll all social spending into 3 flexoble individual budget items 1) education savings accounts 2) health savings accounts 3) basic discretionary income. All 3 would act as optional/universal federal grants given to individuals not states or programs and this allows people the flexibility to spend the tax money they believe they are entitled to in the ways that they normally would if it were their income. Combined with reforms to school and health spending this might work. Would have to see if fiscally possible
That was an interesting argument. Thank you for sharing.
A recent study found out that. with a basic income the only people quit jobs were overwheamingly low income students, and mothers.
Honestly the fast majority will spend it wrong but not intentionally. We need to include financial education so people know how to manage their income.
How is this a post from this channel?
Thank you I've been saying this for 10 years
Update the safety net. Have a means tested financial safety net (at the state level), not a safety net based on government run programs for everyone.
"dude, we're giving 'em the money now" - love it
Good thought and makes tremendous sense. The biggest problem, however, is to suggest in a political economy that assuming politicians would never keep creating additional and new support programs would be an assumption that has never held true.
You're doing good work here Rubin
How do we stop a UBI from growing larger and larger over time? There will always be more winners than losers for every politician to advocate for another increase in a UBI. We've seen something similar with socialised medicine where the demand is limitless and budgets and bureaucracies only grow. Why saddle ourselves with another burden?
I’m not entirely convinced yet. Any recommendations for essays or analysis that I can read up on?
It's just "free" communism out of the taxpayer's wallet.
Well like he said, it’s no better than our current welfare state. I am a Libertarian so it’s very unlikely that it’ll convert me. But in order to defend my beliefs I need to understand the opposition.
in a previous Liberty U video it was stated $20k was spent on each poor person..adding up federal, state, and local govt.
but I can how this is discussing federal policy so maybe 12k comes fed of 20k
I believe in Milton Friedman Negative Income Tax. Which could be played for through a Land Value Tax or a flat consumption tax.
Good idea. This conversation is far from over, however it is a good step.
UBI encourages self-responsibility and encourages that bridge to a full-time job/career.
Milton Friedman advocated for a negative income tax.
It seems to have the same basic problem as welfare: it will expand indefinitely, both in number of people receiving it and the amount they receive.
$12K UBI in San Francisco or NY City is different than $12K UBI in Tulsa or St. Paul. Also, base prices for many goods and services could increase.
Interesting...... Never thought about it that way but have to look at the numbers closer.
I was on the fence until we got to him telling me Milton Friedman approves. I listened to his lectures and I like his thoughts on it. I just didn't recall this and this video isn't necessarily strong
If the UBI is a tax on infrastructure that we paid for I support it because that would be in alignment with Jefferson's idea of "promote the general welfare."
Specifically:
1) it must be general (universal) not to a specific group or territory.
2) it must not involve stipulations of federal overreach on the population.
3) it must be a legal duty or tax on a public common, resource or infrastructure.
So if corporations are using our public commons like satellites and the internet grid, which they do, the public deserves fair compensation for the use of our property.
The last thing Yang should do to appeal to libertarians in regards to the UBI is call it a "negative income tax" because it is not.
What he should do is make it a legal dividend from the use of public commons infrastructure and resources.
Now, is he taking about the same basic income amount given to everyone? Because Milton Freud was not in favor of that. He proposed a negative income tax, a system in which tax credits are allowed if you make under a certain amount. And if your credits outweigh your tax liability, you get a percentage of the difference given to you. It's essentially a wage subsidy that increases or decrease in proportion to your income if it's below a certain level. It eliminates the cliff effect of welfare, providing a way for the poor to work and earn more without being penalized for doing so. It would replace all welfare, under Friedman's plan. There would be no means testing or anything like that. It would be money directly given. It would be administratively much cheeper, and may cost zero to administer if you also enacted a flat positive income tax and abolished the IRS. There would still be free loaders, but there always have and always will be. Friedman also made the point that it wouldn't be a GOOD plan necessarily. It would just be the least bad option.
A serious problem with this is that if recipients blow it on booze and drugs, etc., it's their innocent children who will suffer, just as what happens with the current welfare system.
Biggest problem with this scheme is probably the work disincentive. It would be very tempting to simply quit working and live cheap, since there would be no social condemnation of using what everyone gets.
Second biggest problem is the raw cost. He glibly says this will replace all other programs, including social security. Yeah, but do the math: 12k per year for adult population (78% of 308 million). That's 2.9 trillion dollars per year. That's 66% of the entire federal budget.
love it. liked and subbed. thankyou very much
Welfare - the government is a terrible polygamist.
Universal Basic Income - the government is a terrible charity.
It's not charity its a handout.
@@ildikoivanyi6873 Precisely! And government handouts never accomplish anything good.
@@yardmasterswealtheducation8424 I know, I had to suffer in the single mother welfare ghetto, and gov forced school. Worst years of my life. It turned me off to marriage and kids. I developed a nihilistic worldview as a result of the environment.
@@ildikoivanyi6873 I can relate to your experience. There is much in life to cause despair, but, there is much beauty and love, too. It took decades of work to "retrain" myself out of all the lies we were taught growing up. There really is great hope and joy to experience in life.
@@yardmasterswealtheducation8424 Right :)
Recognizing the distorting affects of state intervention, he purposes a half-measure. Time for whole measures.
As a liberal who supports a strong welfare state, I agree!
I generally prefer universal programs to means tested programs, because means testing come with negative side effects and extra bureacracy
I always thought a good alternative to welfare was work.
Research clearly disproves your flawed logic; for in the United Kingdom, the majority of welfare recipients are employed.
Interesting thought process, but how would you stop the runaway inflation as an unintended consequence? As an analogy, consider the rise in cost of education after the government started giving out tuition assistance. I still don't see UBI as a viable alternative to the very piss poor idea that the government has to take care of the destitute.
In line at a grocery store a woman with Louis Vuitton bag gold earrings, bracelet, necklace; Using food stamps. The woman behind her had no food stamps and was using coupons, and she was not carrying a 900$ bag.
I like this but i also say you can opt out and put it towards your taxes
Alternative to welfare is called WORK!
If anyone needs a helping hand then give them a loan and help them find work then take your money back once they are working.
STOP all handouts
I like this argument a lot.
Universal Basic Income can be a wonderful alternative to welfare! Just make sure it's only enough for the bare minimum reasonable standard of living, and it replaces nearly all existing welfare programs. That's really the only way a ubi can be sustainable long term. Homelessness and destitution would likely plummet to almost nothing, prison recidivism rates would fall, etc. Now the only bad things about ubi would be its potential to lower the work ethic of the population and make them even more dependent upon the state. Also, it would be unsustainable unless almost all alphabet soup agencies were abolished and the ubi was very small.
Geek In utopia I believe the only good form of welfare is to require people to work for it. If they want a benefit why can’t they report to the local benefit office Monday through Friday and do needs based work to collect a paycheck? Eventually the person will aspire to do something better that earns more in the private market. If not, at least we are getting some form of societal contribution from them instead of subsidizing people who have no incentive to get a free market job.
What we need is UBP - (universal Basic Productivity). That will produce UBI for all able-bodied people.
3 bottles and a terrarium in the background
Use an updated model of Caesar's modified Grain Dole system.
What I don't understand about UBI is "how would we mitigate inflation?". If the money supply increases all around (without a corresponding increase in the number of goods), isn't that the text book definition of inflation?
and what of the social security recipients who currently get more than 12000 yr on the past earnings?
3:43 The government shouldn't give out money, it's theft, the one plan is to get rid of it. Ending government is the end goal, all else is secondary.
Wow... that actually made a LOT of sense. And I'm as anti-UBI as it comes; but the idea of a more efficient administration of currently existing entitlements is a great step in the "smaller-government" direction (the idea of eliminating thousands of state and federal bureaucrats makes me giddy).
They shouldn’t be complaining on what they get to spend on the handouts they’re getting. Those who supply the handouts deserve a say.
This is a good argument but doesn't account for the dis-incentivisation of productivity nor the demand push inflation in CPI due to this. Would be great to see this worked out.
I admire his practicality. Replacement is a small step compared to abolishment. At least it's in the right direction. Still, I prefer negative income tax as Friedman explained.
The only way Universal Basic Income would work is if you gave everyone the same basic income from the poorest of poor, to the richest of the rich. Then if a person's income is above a certain level, they pay a portion back and the higher the income the more you pay back. For example if you make 30k then pay 10% back, going up 5% for every 10k income till you reach 100%. This all or nothing because you reach a threshold is stupid.
The only way UBI could possibly work is for a body completely independent of the government to distribute the money. Otherwise every election time, each party would just promise more and more.
Stuart Laughton yup, you’d get a Bernie sanders type to rant and rave about muh billionaiz and how “dis family can’t even affowd dah payments on there car dat dey couldn’t affowd in da first place” give them more gibs. Tax da wealthy
has anyone ever looked into the cost of implementing the current welfare systems. I feel like the costs of government labour, all the paper work and thus all the time spent to make sure people are eligible for welfare are probably quite high as well and would drop dramatically with a new system like this that is way easier to implement.
And that is a big incentive for government to oppose this type of change. Reducing the bureaucracy does not benefit those in power or those seeking it.
Hold up... if you're taking the same amount of money that's currently being spent on all social programs combined, and spend that amount on UBI, wouldn't some people end up receiving less in benefits than they are now? I don't think that would go over too well.
Cant be liberty loving and wear your heart on your sleeve when it comes to other ppls money.
Money is an abstraction, like art. It's a tool we use to keep score between the individual and his relationship with Society. You've made money your master and you revere it, instead of expecting it to work for the betterment of society as a whole.
Milton freidman did NOT advocate for a UBI, he advocated for a negitive income tax.
He said its the least bad government wealfare.
Just as he said the least bad tax is the land value tax.
Correction! Milton Friedman is NOT for UBI, He argued for negative income tax!
The problem will be that if a universal basic income is introduced, none of the other subsides will be dropped. It will become one more entitlement piled on top of all the others. Friedman was in favour of basic income only if the other entitlements were eliminated.
Yes please enforce prosperity for everyone. How come no one ever thought of this solution before, it's brilliant. We're all gonna be rich.
Where do I sign my soul away? oh you already did that for me.
I've never heard this perspective before. I like the directionalist vs destinationalist distinction. The only thing I can disagree with is marriage being positive. The marriage risk premium is the highest of all... ..With equities, you can at least exit your position and know the exact loss BEFORE you sell!!! Marriage makes hyperinflation look like child's play... ...with hyperinflation, you can hold on to your hard/fixed assets until things normalize (assuming you have enough canned food).
After watching this Prager U. video called "The War on Work" I got curious. The total cost to the Union of the Civil War was $6.2 billion. (In 2015 dollars, that's $96.8 billion.) In the Prager video, the speaker said we paid $960 billion to fight poverty in 2012. In short, we spend almost exactly ten times as much to eliminate poverty every year as the ENTIRE Civil War cost the Union...in real dollars.
According to blackdemographics.com, 42.6 million Americans identify themselves as "black only". Divide $960 billion by that, and it comes to $22,535 for every black man, woman and child in America. A one-time gift would pay for college for every black kid under 18, and it would pay the rent and groceries for every unemployed black adult for a year, enough time to get off drugs, go back to school or find some kind of job. And that's just how much we spent in one year. Poverty, Inc. is big business, and that is why NO ONE helping the poor ever wants them to go away.
3:20 Destinationalist or Directionalist
Every state action has a cost on its population. The balance of state services and individual services can’t be thrown out of balance.
I vote for zero social assistance. If you’re unemployed then the state should find some shit work for you to do and compensate you that way. You’d be amazed how motivated someone will get when the have to pick up trash or cut grass in 100 degree heat.
I'm certainly not well informed enough on this topic, but I can't say this sounds all that bad if it is tied to either establishing yourself in a new area for a set amount of time or reliant on your employment status.
the premise that 'welfare system is bad' is good, solution of universal income is pure bravo sierra....
I can see the theory behind UBI having a better incentive structure compared to the current system. Currently if you earn more money, it takes away from the welfare that you are already guaranteed, so there is no incentive to work. If the UBI is low enough that you are forced to work to have a better life, but at least gives you something so that you can survive in the short term, then it should encourage people to work harder for themselves, rather than rely on the government.
Whether it works in practice, I have no idea.
I have had this question for a while, wouldn't every single person recieving say $10k just mean that prices will eventually rise to an equilibrium so it is as if that $10k is barely worth anything? Or am I way off here?
Philip thats a worry but that would only happen if you don't increase taxes at the same time. The idea is that those at the very bottom of the income scale might see some increase in income, but by the time you reach a higher income the gains are either non existent or negligible.
"Let's go Brandon. I agree!" - President Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. 12/25/2021
Where did Milton Friedman say he is OK with UBI? I know he was promoting negative income tax but I never heard anything about UBI from him.
This makes sense.
People have to "qualify" for Welfare programs, and the criteria is different for each program. The incentive to improve is destroyed by finite limits on income (I think its gross income less specific amounts for basic needs like shelter and utilities...) , and I believe these limits are less than the overall need to live independently. Maybe a "hybrid" program would work to make these programs into ONE so the recipient can make it through that economic "no-man-zone" between complete dependence on the government for survival to real economic independence from government programs. This is a different path for every family. There has to be a FLEX in the application of benefits.
How would UBI influence inflation though?
It's a disappointment seeing Learn Liberty advocating for UBI.
agreed! Food Banks, Public Kitchens, and Food delivery (for the handicapped for example) are the ONLY "free benefits" citizens, CITIZENS, should be given. And lets give that without questioning them. Let the churches handle as much of this as possible. Furthermore, all other free benefits, everything else, should be handled 100% by the churches. If the churches refuse, revoke their tax status. Non-citizens must be questioned on all things, in every aspect, until they are documented as level 1, level 2, or level 3 (where level 3 = full citizenship.)
If Learn Liberty supports UBI, it shows LL does not support private property rights, and does not support a tenant of liberty.
@snaaky005: They also say they're open to eliminating welfare entirely, but that someone else is going to have to make the argument for it/for how that would improve things.
just having a discussion.. wished there were more rebuttal questions though.
Snaaky005 its a disappointment? Lol some people are in the camp of reason and logic and not in the camp of red or blue. It’s both refreshing and necessary for both sides to get this through their heads honestly
Once people have gotten used to UBI they will just start over with saying that these people (single moms, people with disabilities etc) need more.
It will just be another layer of welfare!
I never thought I'd be agreeing with a libertarian.
@D Madd11 3:08 self proclaimed libertarian then. You're right though, I don't ever watch these folks; partly my fault, and partly social medias echo chambers fault.
Current system: when a person falls behind for whatever circumstances they are left to rot. No income, no means to buy anything, no one can economically provide for them. Some still have energy but have had legitimate employment closed off to them due to a criminal record or they have no marketable skills. They may turn to criminal activity to meet basic needs.
Under UBI: a lowest level is set on income. Those on the lowest rung have at least something with which to participate in the legitimate economic system. There is a toe-hold economically to provide basics to these at the bottom. Those at the very bottom don't have to starve and those who feel inclined to help them don't have to go uncompensated for their efforts.
The problem with a Universal Basic Income - You MUST pay it to everyone. If you have any line where you stop paying it, than the cliff exists. I'm a fan of something similar to a Universal Basic Income, but I think it should be structured on a sliding scale. So basically, if you decide that $40K annually is the minimum anyone should get, than someone 100% dependent on government should receive that money. For every dollar you make in income from a job, you lose 50 cents of the government money. That way, anyone with a job is still better off than they were before the job. Anyone getting a raise is still better off than they were before the raise, etc.
Now, I don't know if those are the exact best numbers. You have to let people keep enough of their own money that they have an incentive to get the extra money. Right now, the system is exactly the opposite. There are actually income ranges where for every dollar a person makes, the lose more than a dollar of government benefits, leaving them worse off after a raise than they were before. That provides a disincentive for people to become self-sufficient and is a dangerous trap. Sure, eventually that person will be better off if they continue to improve their circumstances, but they may go years worse off in the meantime and most people aren't going to look that far ahead.
As for the "they will spend it on the wrong things" argument. I don't have much sympathy for that argument. Paying providers directly can address some of that, but people will say "that's what we are doing today". That has 3rd-party payer issues which drives costs artificially high and is not good. But even if we kept that end of things, we still need to consolidate entitlements and have a sliding scale instead of the cliff so that there is incentive to become self-sufficient.
Sounds good. I wonder how the state would fuck it up.