"The UBI is to be financed by getting rid of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, Supplemental Security Income, housing subsidies, welfare for single women and every other kind of welfare and social-services program, as well as agricultural subsidies and corporate welfare. As of 2014, the annual cost of a UBI would have been about $200 billion cheaper than the current system. By 2020, it would be nearly a trillion dollars cheaper."
26 plus ones
Shared publicly•View activity
- Short response: When people do not need to work in order to afford to eat, or provide for their families, who will grow the food?
Wall of text response:
Its advocates on the left see it as a move toward social justice; its libertarian supporters (like Friedman) see it as the least damaging way for the government to transfer wealth from some citizens to others. Either way, the UBI is an idea whose time has finally come, but it has to be done right. - So... Who knows how to do it right? And why is it that this is the "best" suggestion we have to improve the economy (it's not a jobs market, it's a whole economy...), instead of getting onerous government regulation out of the way of businesses who see fleeing America as a better solution to their ills than sticking around?
Wealth transfer is theft. Couching the transfer in other terms than that which have already been used is akin to calling theft an undocumented transfer of property.
First, my big caveat: A UBI will do the good things I claim only if it replaces all other transfer payments and the bureaucracies that oversee them. If the guaranteed income is an add-on to the existing system, it will be as destructive as its critics fear. - At least the WSJ takes the time to express, in not as many words, that this idea is completely impossible. The fact that a Mastermind solution to the societal rot and Government/Corporate Crony Capitalism that has stymied American growth and prosperity over the most recent century must rely upon it's edicts being implemented "perfectly" speaks to its complete absurdity. This very premise is why Government fails at nearly everything it attempts, and why Government failure is the root cause for the societal rot America is suffering today.
Second, the system has to be designed with certain key features. In my version, every American citizen age 21 and older would get a $13,000 annual grant deposited electronically into a bank account in monthly installments. Three thousand dollars must be used for health insurance (a complicated provision I won’t try to explain here), leaving every adult with $10,000 in disposable annual income for the rest of their lives. - Granted, $13k isn't a lot to live on. Sadly, out of the gate, the plan requires spending of the wealth transfer on something the Government will invariably have to control; more cronyism.
The UBI is to be financed by getting rid of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, Supplemental Security Income, housing subsidies, welfare for single women and every other kind of welfare and social-services program, as well as agricultural subsidies and corporate welfare. - Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, food stamps and SSI are direct wealth transfers (theft). Welfare and welfare for single women (supposedly mothers unable to work; one of the most abused "entitlement programs" available) are the same. Social service programs are not always specifically aimed at direct wealth transfer, and often provide support to citizens (if only they would be limited to citizens...) unable to function fully in society (disability, mental health issues, etc.) Agricultural subsidies and corporate welfare are code words for Crony Capitalism, and should NEVER have happened in the first place.
Finally, an acknowledgment: Yes, some people will idle away their lives under my UBI plan. But that is already a problem. As of 2015, the Current Population Survey tells us that 18% of unmarried males and 23% of unmarried women ages 25 through 54—people of prime working age—weren’t even in the labor force. Just about all of them were already living off other people’s money. The question isn’t whether a UBI will discourage work, but whether it will make the existing problem significantly worse. - Because the problem of wealth transfer induced sloth isn't something we should work to reduce; it's going to be there, no matter what. Instead, we should find a way to continue it's course, but limit it's increase... Uh, really? So it's ideal to have nearly a fifth of the entire population simply coast, funded by the sweat and wealth stolen from the rest of society?
Some people who would otherwise work will surely drop out of the labor force under the UBI, but others who are now on welfare or disability will enter the labor force. It is prudent to assume that net voluntary dropout from the labor force will increase, but there is no reason to think that it will be large enough to make the UBI unworkable. - The people who currently rely on the welfare state are generally not going to self-start themselves into the workforce simply because their benefit has changed for the "worse". As I said before, there is no conceivable way a plan like this could possibly happen (entitlements are levers of control through which politicians buy votes and support... They will NEVER be eliminated; only changed.) If someone unable to work due to disability loses their income their likelihood of returning to the workforce is low; they were removed from the workforce as a result of a work-inhibiting disability. As for the majority of those who are on welfare, but not disabled, if this sort of system somehow magically manifests into existence, they will not be directly motivated to work much more than the income-reducing threshold; skill acquisition and improvement takes time and dedication those who have fallen out of the job market after two years of not finding work seem largely unable to muster. Work is available, if one is skilled and dedicated. Those who are skilled in a trade and honest were able to maintain their incomes, and improve in many cases, following the Government caused financial system and housing market collapses.
The author goes on to to talk about the foibles of the rest of the welfare state, as well as its generally being abused and mismanaged. One thing that isn't addressed fully, is the fact that our current immigration enforcement apparatus has been effectively decimated, eliminating enforcement in most respects, and actively subverting it in others. As immigration enforcement, along with citizenship testing, were the primary mechanisms in place preventing those not entitled to the benefits of the welfare state from drawing on the nation's stolen wealth, it would stand to reason that if America were to replace those aspects of the welfare state Mr. Bromley is suggesting with a UBI, the floodgates that have hitherto been opened to those fleeing their backward nations would likewise provide an unfettered incentive to the rest of the world's poor to overwhelm our borders and suckle at the teat of stolen wealth.
Government agencies are the worst of all mechanisms for dealing with human needs. They are necessarily bound by rules applied uniformly to people who have the same problems on paper but who will respond differently to different forms of help. Whether religious or secular, nongovernmental organization are inherently better able to tailor their services to local conditions and individual cases. - Individualism is supposed to be the cornerstone of the Left's agenda. Everyone is special, in their own, unique way, and society must contort itself around the needs and desires of the individual, as opposed to having the individual live any moment of their lives in discomfort where that discomfort comes at the benefit or normalcy of another. Why is it, then, that the solution suggested removes the myriad of social systems that purport to, and often do, cater to a particular societal ill and replace it with a one-size-fits-all, centrally managed Federal UBI?
Under my UBI plan, the entire bureaucratic apparatus of government social workers would disappear, but Americans would still possess their historic sympathy and social concern. - The last part of this sentence speaks volumes about the author's lack of contact with society. Americans do not seem to possess their historic sympathy and social concern. Taking the crime rates in the population centers scattered around America, making up 80% of the population, it would seem that this statement was made in the same echo-chamber the UBI was concocted.
...And the wealth in private hands would be greater than ever before. - This basically says it all... The author doesn't believe that an individual or corporation is entitled to private wealth creation, and the theft and redistribution of that wealth is just.
It will be possible to say to the irresponsible what can’t be said now: “We won’t let you starve before you get your next deposit, but it’s time for you to get your act together. Don’t try to tell us you’re helpless, because we know you aren’t.” - This actually exists in America today. Those who are unable to make their ends meet, but are able to work, should hear this from every person they ask for help. Why is this not happening? More to the point, why are those who are unable to adequately manage their affairs so often left with nothing but the Government to fail them, instead of a robust, locally managed social safety net?
A UBI would present the most disadvantaged among us with an open road to the middle class if they put their minds to it. - The road to the "middle class" is wide open for every American. The machinations and failures of the Leviathan trip up those who wish to progress, but, despite their best efforts, there are still those who are able to succeed. I know. I am one of those who grew up taking from the wealth that was stolen from those around my mother; a mother who actively worked at not having a traceable income so as to not disrupt her welfare and food stamps, medicaid and other social welfare benefits. I've managed to take my personal disadvantage, founded in "white, male privilege," and work my way up to the second highest Enlisted pay grade in the US Coast Guard; no small feat for one who is largely uneducated, in the traditional sense, and who has only been working in the Service for 18 years. Why does this experience, and the myriad others I know happen every day to those who are dedicated to their own subsistence, and that of their families, count for nothing when Masterminds formulate the next social justice/income equality/wealth equality scheme?
I think what bothers me the most about this post is that the author doesn't even realize how condescending their words are. Americans are human. They are subject to the human condition, and all that humanity's observation of human nature can tell us about how they'll react to a given stimuli. Everything we've learned as a species tells us that this man's ideas are outright pipe dreams, and completely illogical given the predictability of those they would be foisted on. And yet, we should just try this again; we should try Socialism/Communism/Totalitarianism again, but this time, we should do it right.
Who would do it right? Given what we know of humanity and human nature, what human would do any of this "right"?Jun 4, 2016
- Looking FWD to the old age pension being a safety net againJun 4, 2016
- seems to have hit all of the current logical fallacies in one fell swoop. Well done.
I hope soon to see his next analysis where he justifies the complete dismantling of democracy because it has failed so badly.
Oh, yeah, and that landing on the moon thing... What company did that? Sure thing. I'll go quietly. But I just had to point out how all those fallacies managed to be included in one long post. You get an "A" from me.Jun 6, 2016
Add a comment...