Hacker News Reader

Comment by ObligatoryRef | Hacker News Reader

I like some of the arguments being made here. I would just have a few questions:

If the program involves no strings attached grants, and it is meant to replace existing welfare systems, what happens to people who blow their money on nonessentials? Is there a secondary net for them, or are they allowed to starve? What about bad parents who take the cash without providing for their children?

I understand that these questions are just as valid with our current system, but is there a way to address them within this new framework?

View on HN

I think bad parents would be addressed through Child Protective Services just as now. That's not really a matter of "welfare".

The first one is tough. How do you help people who basically don't want it, and how far do you go in trying? Stuff like food stamps is still easy to work around, by simply selling the goods for cash. Time to go back to "government cheese" for the hard cases? Or treat "you get enough money from the government to keep yourself fed, but you still can't keep yourself fed" as a mental illness?

Perhaps I just lack imagination, but if someone blew their week's money on nonessentials, my sympathy is rather limited, and they can figure out a way to survive the couple days they've run out of money. Maybe some TaskRabbit jobs or panhandling. As far as children, I don't think this offers any new tools beyond what we have now (CPS) to help make sure they're taken care of.

I do have concerns about disabilities in particular and medical costs more generally. Someone with a real disability (instead of the fake disabilities rampant now) has extremely high costs that far exceed any reasonable amount provided by the BI. Are they just screwed? Condemned to private charity? What about cancer patients, or even just old people as a class?

And I suspect these very expensive tail-end cases make up the majority of the costs of existent programs. Banning age-discrimination in health insurance and an individual health insurance mandate for catastrophic coverage might account for the medical aspects, but that doesn't address the disability portion.

Not sure of the answer, here.

If you're going with BI you might as well also have universal single-payer healthcare to solve the cancer patients aspect, and severe disabilities could be covered as an additional program.

Perhaps, but that takes away from much of the conceptual beauty and promise of a BIG, and many people who like the BIG (including myself) are loath to implement a single-payer system.

Why does it take away from the beauty/promise, and why would someone for BI dislike single-payer healthcare?

What do you do today about parents who sell their food stamps for liquor or other drugs?

This is, of course, the huge problem with this plan. Not that this isn't the right thing to do; but because the media and public will seize on the few morons who do stupid things and therefore malign a program that would actually help most.

Just imagine the headlines: Addicts Caught Buying Crack With Your Money.

It doesn't matter which party pushes it. If the Democrats pass it, the Republicans will scream about this; if the Republicans do, then the Democrats will scream how this justifies government as a warden.

>> "what happens to people who blow their money on nonessentials? Is there a secondary net for them, or are they allowed to starve?

If there is no second safety net they will very quickly learn to be more responsible. Provided the person has no mental illness there is no reason an adult can't figure out they need to use the money wisely.

>> "What about bad parents who take the cash without providing for their children?"

Aren't there already laws in place to take care of that? If you don't care for your children they will be taken away from you.

Right now, today, we have women trading WIC products for alcohol and drugs. This isn't going to really change anything WRT that.

(I'm in the submitting too fast punishment pen. Source for my claim is having worked retail supermarket as a starving student, and having friends / coworkers / neighbors doing just this. You are correct that it is hyperbole that everyone who can't stomach 3 cans per week of juicy-juice blueberry corn syrup flavor psuedo-juice per week is a crack addict, lots of poor people just trying to get by.)

Any source for that claim? I've heard things like that spouted by pundits, but they never seem to have any credible evidence.

> what happens to people who blow their money on nonessentials? Is there a secondary net for them, or are they allowed to starve?

Simple tweaks can help make it harder to fall through the net. For example, rather than cutting a BI check once a year, you cut 52 checks once a week (or once per pay period for those getting it as part of their paycheck.) Blow through your check and you starve for a few days rather than the rest of the year.

It may be paternalistic, but it removes a lot of the need for additional safety nets.

If you do weekly payments, then a few people will just rack up debt, or will just squander the money every week. I think the problem would still exist, and progressives would still push for a secondary net.

A determined person will cut through as many nets as they need to; should we have a tertiary net as well?

Can't save everyone, but we should at least be able to say with a clear conscience that we gave everyone the chance.

Many of the "secondary" nets cover specific things, like food, housing, or healthcare, rather than just "money". It's harder to cut through those, though not impossible.

Personally, I'd pay it out on a regular basis, so people who blow one week can still get it the next.

This is Milton Friedman's proposed solution as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM

Another key point is making loans offered on the basis of future basic income allowances unenforceable.

I don't think you need to consider how the loans were offered at all, the legal system should just not enforce debt collection of basic income.

I think this fits well in our existing bankruptcy system.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com