|
SHY NUDIST GRRL posted:Why do they say that goon sir The cost of living for anyone anywhere can vary massively from person to person and place to place based on their social and individual circumstances. Does this singular payment aim to provide for a single disabled person raising children in an urban setting or a single person in a rural community (to take two examples)? To say there's one sum paid to everyone which is designed to cover their actual living costs is to either give some far above or far below their actual needs, while having additional programs to offer disability allowance, child allowances, urban top ups or whatever else can be measured and quantified is likely to arrive at an array of programs and payments which will get much closer to giving people what they need. While the act of qualifying for anything will always anger some it's easier and better to justify these additional payments point by point rather than have the whole program be under attack by rightwingers complaining about young and single people wasting their cut or subjecting the most put upon in society to the humiliation of real poverty under a system when there's meant to be a simple solution to it, meaning many will simply ignore them or blame them for wasting what they do get.
|
#
¿
May 21, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 15:42 |
|
|
Corky Romanovsky posted:The kids would probably get a UBI, too. Okay but that doesn't alter the point that shared households typically have a lower cost per head than someone living alone and children have even less than adults. If you're determined to give everyone the same amount and (crucially) expect that amount to adequately provide for them then you have to acknowledge the inevitable massive variations between most of the populations need and the money they'd receive (both above and below) and prepare a political defence for it. Administrative savings might get you some of the way, the security and ease of knowing that that's the payment and that it is unconditionally universal a little further but so long as there's public perception of limited purse strings then the excess payments have to be justified and if the UBI is done to eliminate poverty entirely then any underpayments must be met with, I dunno, a sad shrug? quote:UBI will probably cause population redistribution, as you may not need to live in a city to get a job. Cash flow increase in rural areas would likely boost the local economies and make job opportunities there as well. I'm a big fan of abolishing the distinction between urban and rural life and telling landlords to git tae gently caress but it would take decades to reach a vaguely equilibrium level and you'd have to still justify the actual values all that time.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
The fact that the essentials of live do not consume the entire income of the majority already and that no one essential takes all of the income from anyone shows that no one industry exists in a pure monopoly state. Your landlord is ripping you off but you still can afford just enough food to keep going after all. Injecting money and increasing the circulation of money to the very poorest will inevitably have an effect on prices, depending on the amount of competition that exists between it and substitutes (housing will always dominate and take a large share of any gains if it is allowed to because it's usually oligopolistic supply at best and extremely few will choose homelessness if they don't have to) but that's far from true for everything and it's equally false to assume that the only way to ensure that the policy ends up benefiting the poorest that receive it is to have strict price controls. You have price controls because why the gently caress should anyone be able to charge far above cost of production, replenishment and necessary investment just because they can? Hob_Gadling posted:I've no idea why you think Venezuelan system is UBI Don't think I did? Also price controls have a long and complicated history far beyond a South American authoritarian welfare state. namesake has issued a correction as of 21:28 on May 22, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 22, 2017 21:02
|
|