Universal Basic Income

[dfrecore]

This is not true. Black women are not kicking men out to be on welfare. Welfare just makes it easier to have children out of wedlock because you know the safety net is there. When you're not married, you're more likely to split. Over 70% of black children are born out of wedlock. Most of the time, the father is not in the home either because there was a split with the mother that had nothing to do with welfare or the man just took off to avoid his responsibilities. Not having a partner in the home is what triggers applying for welfare, not the other way around. Black women would much rather have a partner around helping them to raise their children because it's much better than being on welfare. As a matter of fact, many women lie about not having a man in the home, but he's often not the father of the children.

I don't know everyone's race around here, but I often see a lot of non-black people who are more willing to listen to other non-black people on what it's like to be black rather than people who are actually black.

I am half-black, with lots of black (and half-black) family members. I've studied black history. I've witnessed plenty in a few different communities. So I think I'm qualified to speak about this.

If you look at the history of black families before the "war on poverty" began, they stayed together. What magically happened around that time to change things, if not this?

Families needing welfare, and women being told that they could not have it if a man was in the house. They would even show up to check and see if it looked like a man was living there. I know people who this happened to. So, basically, they could get money if a man wasn't around, and not if a man was.

[dfrecore]

The bottom line is that UBI will never happen with the nearly 100% corrupt politicians we have on the Democratic side on top of the cluster fest on the GOP side that doesn't care if we die. We can talk after single payer is in the US, which I think is highly unlikely in my lifetime even if the Dems control all three branches of us government.

This is not just a "republicans are corrupt and want us to die" vs. "dems are awesome and so compassionate". Please. I'm very conservative, yet I don't want people to die. BUT, I think that single-payer is a huge mistake because we (our country) can't afford it. If you look at the budget now, it's crazy out of control. My biggest fear is that I will leave my kids with a HUGE tax burden someday, because we spend more than we make. This will only make it 10 times worse.

So far, we've seen a single-payer system in our country, and it's called the VA - and it is an unmitigated disaster. Corruption is rampant. People are dying. So far, none of the problems that they've uncovered there have resulted in a single thing being fixed! We are more than 3 years into the wait-times scandal (at least of the public knowing about it) and NOTHING has been done. No one in charge has been fired. What in the world makes you think that our government is going to be able to create a brand new bureaucratic department, and IT is going to do a good job with our health? When I think of single-payer care in the US, I think of going to the doctor being like going to the DMV. Lord help you if you have a problem that needs to be fixed immediately.

[sanantone]

I am half-black, with lots of black (and half-black) family members. I've studied black history. I've witnessed plenty in a few different communities. So I think I'm qualified to speak about this.

If you look at the history of black families before the "war on poverty" began, they stayed together. What magically happened around that time to change things, if not this?

Families needing welfare, and women being told that they could not have it if a man was in the house. They would even show up to check and see if it looked like a man was living there. I know people who this happened to. So, basically, they could get money if a man wasn't around, and not if a man was.

The War on Drugs came soon after. But, you're completely missing the point that less black children were born out of wedlock before the sexual revolution and War on Poverty. Men are more likely to leave if they aren't married to the mother. Many times, there was no relationship to begin with.

The welfare you qualify for is actually based on income, not having a man in the house. My grandfather stayed with my grandmother, and he was in the military, but they still qualified for food stamps. After the welfare to work laws, any adult who is in the household is required to find a job, this includes adult children. Plenty of families with men in the household receive welfare. The only reasons why a man would be hidden is either to hide income or to hide an adult who is unwilling to get a job.

Another issue that the War on Drugs can be linked to is that those with drug convictions can't be in public housing or receive a Section 8 voucher. So, if a father gets out of prison, he can't go back to living with his family unless they lie about him living in the home.This applies to everyone, including mothers with drug convictions.

1. My family was on welfare in the 90s and 2000s, and I've personally had to deal with the welfare to work rules.

2. My grandparents received food stamps after the War on Poverty was started because military salaries were so low. Many military families, today, still qualify for some form of government assistance.

3. In my current and two of my past jobs, I worked with men who were knowingly in the household and received government assistance. Not being able to have a man in the household is a total myth. It's all about income and meeting the work requirements either by getting a job or going to school. There's an exemption if you're disabled.

[Exfactor]

The war on poverty, which has been disastrous for black families especially, made women basically kick men out in order to qualify for benefits.

Incorrect. To receive any sort of benefits you could not have a man living with you in the home, at the time. Matter of fact, social workers would visit your home just to confirm you didn't; as well as making sure you had no made extravagant purchases. Black women did not kick Black men out of the home to receive benefits. Due to the racial, social, and political structure of a system preventing Black men to be providers of their families what the system provided was often times more than what Black men could provide for their families, and that same system continues to play out in 2017.

I don't know everyone's race around here, but I often see a lot of non-black people who are more willing to listen to other non-black people on what it's like to be black rather than people who are actually black.

That's always the case, and when it's not its some cornball thats projected to the forefront to say what they wanna hear.

[bjcheung77]

Too many people in poverty and too many people are exploiting the welfare system...
There isn't a viable system, or one that doesn't look at all sides of applicant for welfare.
It's really boiling down to the person as well, the "needs" vs "wants"...

I'm a very frugal person and I want a lot of things, but I place my needs before those.
I don't like to borrow money from the bank and like saving up in my savings accounts.
Basically, everyone should live "well within their means" and not be spoiled or wasteful.

[sanantone]

Incorrect. To receive any sort of benefits you could not have a man living with you in the home, at the time. Matter of fact, social workers would visit your home just to confirm you didn't; as well as making sure you had no made extravagant purchases. Black women did not kick Black men out of the home to receive benefits. Due to the racial, social, and political structure of a system preventing Black men to be providers of their families what the system provided was often times more than what Black men could provide for their families, and that same system continues to play out in 2017.



That's always the case, and when it's not its some cornball thats projected to the forefront to say what they wanna hear.

You brought up a point about stability. Some women do not report when their boyfriends live with them or when their husbands come back because they would become ineligible for assistance either due to the man's criminal record or his income. If they were to break up, it can take a year or more to get back into public housing or to receive Section 8 vouchers.

It might vary by state and laws do change over time, but the only agency that came to our home was the local housing authority. They checked for whether or not there was a man in the home, not because there was a blanket rule against having a man, but because a man was not listed in the household composition.

[OE800_85]

The thing that really sways me is the efficiency of it. Government programs are so wasteful and bureaucratic that when you add up all the administrators, watchdogs, regulators, and so forth, very little of that money actually makes it into the hands of the poor.

A UBI is simple; agree upon and calculate the baseline level of existence we think people of a nation shouldn't go below. For me, that would be: shelter (shared/extremely basic housing), food, and health coverage. This benefits society in a number of ways.

Crime. Whatever your stance on this issue, you can't deny the majority of crimes are those of desperation. The vast majority of people don't want to be criminals and simply do what they can to make ends meet.

Education. People won't feel the pinch financially and drop out of school. This is something that only exists in the lower class. I'm glad we have a website like this to make the most out of our education, but this is not the experience of most Americans. A better educated population only makes the country better.

Public Health. If people can afford the time or money necessary to eat well, visit a doctor regularly the benefits will range from less time missed to a dramatic drop in rates of diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and so forth.

In all three of these categories, America already spends among the most in the world. After doing the math, we might find that a UBI is actually cheaper than the current system and will lower taxes dramatically in the long run.

Edit: I figured I'd add some numbers to the discussion here. Source: US Welfare Spending for 2017 - Charts

Current Spending (in billions total state + federal)

Social Security: 951.9
Medicare: 599.7
Medicaid: 715.8
Other Welfare: 411.2
Total ~ 2.7 Trillion

This is not even including:
Gov't Employee Pensions: 473.3
All Other Spending (heavily composed of medical/welfare type expenses): 2952.9

Canada's single payer healthcare system, for example, costs around $4000USD per citizen. If you could provide such a program in America (huge hypothetical, I know), it would cost 1.2 Trillion. This wouldn't be coverage for seniors and the poor, but universal for every single american citizen. The remainder is enough to prop up the bottom 50 million Americans, providing them with $30,000USD per annum. This program isn't even needed by 50 million Americans, it's likely half that. Furthermore, a UBI of $15,000 would be reasonable in most states. If a more detailed analysis of spending were conducted, it's likely another trillion in spending could be taken out of other areas.

Public programs like this aren't charity. They follow simple principles of economics that benefit society as a whole. You gotta spend money to make money, as they say. If you'd like to learn more, I recommend you look at Milton Friedman's discussions on a Negative Income Tax.

[videogamesrock]

That sounds like an unattainable utopia. It will just demotivated people to achieve things. I say make term limits on welfare and then the criminals will be too busy working once their section 8 and food stamps is removed. You go hungry a few days you'll figure it out quick. Tough love.

[sanantone]

That sounds like an unattainable utopia. It will just demotivated people to achieve things. I say make term limits on welfare and then the criminals will be too busy working once their section 8 and food stamps is removed. You go hungry a few days you'll figure it out quick. Tough love.

A lot of people turn to crime when they don't have a job and can't support themselves or when they do have a job and can't support their families. Most people aren't coming crimes because they're​ on welfare and have nothing else to do. Plus, committing serious crimes will get you knocked off of housing programs.

[videogamesrock]

It's natural for people to try to take away from others when everyone around them is on section 8 and on food stamps. It's natural for people to rise and often turn to stealing and exploiting those around them even selling drugs because the cash income keeps them on the government programs. Sitting around doing nothing all day isn't good. It leads to mischief.