If you consider giving basic income to people who spend $500 on weed "robbing", well you are entitled to your opinion, but that's not exploit of system, because system is working as intended.
If you consider giving basic income to people who spend $500 on weed "robbing", well you are entitled to your opinion, but that's not exploit of system, because system is working as intended.
Or, more likely, we don't include disability programs (which are not purely or primarily means-tested programs) as among the primarily-means-tested programs that are replaced by UBI in the first place. To the extent that improvements are needed in disability programs, they come from elsewhere.
(OTOH, part of the problem creating incentive for disability fraud is secondary testing in primarily means-tested benefit programs, which leaves lots of gaps in basic poverty support.)
> What about parents who squander the money and the detrimental effects on their kids. Do we let the kids starve?
We deal with child neglect through child welfare systems, not social benefit systems.
> What about kids in foster care?
What about them?
> What if parents have lots of kids?
Then...they have lots of kids.
> Should kids also get a basic income?
Pretty obviously, yes, kids should get basic income (if nothing else, most of the primarily means-tested social benefit programs -- both welfare and EITC -- in the country are support programs for parents with dependent children that are strongly scaled by the number of dependent children, so if you want a system that does at least as good for current targets of benefits while removing the adverse effects, the obvious methods is that kids should be included as beneficiaries. There are a few programs that are not targeting such families -- e.g., General Assistance programs, but they are small both in their per-beneficiary benefits and their aggregate costs as a share of overall social welfare spending.)
The most sensible way to do a UBI is probably "all citizens and legal permanent residents".
> As we add more and more exceptions there are more opportunities for abuse of the system.
The whole point of the "U" in UBI is that you don't add exceptions. You define a broad universe of recipients with as few qualifications as you can sensibly make, and everyone within that universe gets the same benefit.
What about them? Those kids are themselves either citizens or (improbably) legal permanent residents (and thus, beneficiaries) or not (and thus not). This isn't rocket surgery.
> Will people in retirement continue to get their social security?
That depends whether Social Security is a replaced program or not (IMO, it shouldn't be, since its not a means-tested social benefit program.)
> How will we pay for all this?
With new taxes plus the redirected funds from replaced programs.
> Assuming 418M people
From a few different sources, I get that the US population is 319M, about 93% citizens and 3.6% lawful permanent residents. So, assuming 418M beneficiaries of a UBI is unreasonable.
> at $13K which I typically see mentioned as basic income
$13K/capita is a just about the point at which two-person household would clear the poverty line, so its not a bad point to consider a reasonably mature UBI; OTOH, I'd prefer to identify a funding mechanism that should grow with economic growth, and have benefits scaled so as to (in the long-term, smoothing short-term variability) follow that funding mechanism, eventually reaching such a mature level (and going to even higher levels with more growth) rather than setting a benefit level and then trying to fund it out of the gate.
And I wouldn't expect a mature UBI for a generation or so.
This is not the slippery slope that you're implying; you can certainly draw certain lines when the system that you're building has limited scope and leaves the outliers to other benefits systems.
Absolutely. If you don't like it, sell them weed and then
you have their $500.
Except now, you've used your time and resources to produce weed instead of other goods and services. The people who would have used that $500 to buy those other goods and services will subsequently have a lower standard of living.If someone steals $5k from me and uses that $5k to buy my car, am I just as well off as I was before because I still have my $5k?