Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How do you figure? If they get money for doing nothing, then that's plenty of incentive to sit around and do nothing.
That isn't an incentive, that's a choice.
Currently benefits are means-tested. If you have low income (up to a point!) and a lack of savings, then you qualify. If you make just outside the limit, you get nothing. You either qualify for foodstamps or you get none. You qualify for medicaid or you don't. I'm not sure how housing subsidies work, but I assume that's the same. The bottom line is that people have a strong incentive to stay at an income level where they get maximum benefits. Because a person making more will be cut off, and actually have a lower living standard.
A BI eliminates this incentive *not* to work and make money, because it isn't means tested. Everyone gets it. If you don't mind sitting on the couch and living in poverty you can do that. But if you get off your ass and work you will live a lot better and you won't lose your BI.
You ignore the moral consequences of giving irresponsible people choices.
You and your ilk lament the fact that in spite of 45 Million people receiving Food Stamps, there is still a tremendous amount of "Food Insecurity"
Explain how giving cash in lieu of Food Stamps will alleviate "Food Insecurity."
Not to mention what happened in Maine when non-disabled adults with no dependent children were expected to work and/or volunteer 20 hours a week to continue to receive SNAP benefits after 3 months.
They were so food insecure that 9,000 of the 11,680 recipients dropped out of the program faced with the choice of less food or volunteering in their communities. Truly hungry people would have made a different choice.
Currently benefits are means-tested. If you have low income (up to a point!) and a lack of savings, then you qualify. If you make just outside the limit, you get nothing. You either qualify for foodstamps or you get none. You qualify for medicaid or you don't. I'm not sure how housing subsidies work, but I assume that's the same. The bottom line is that people have a strong incentive to stay at an income level where they get maximum benefits. Because a person making more will be cut off, and actually have a lower living standard.
A BI eliminates this incentive *not* to work and make money, because it isn't means tested. Everyone gets it. If you don't mind sitting on the couch and living in poverty you can do that. But if you get off your ass and work you will live a lot better and you won't lose your BI.
Okay. I see your reasoning now. It makes half sense. I totally get it being better with todays system to maybe stay at the minnimum wage rather than get the dollar raise and not qualify for benefits.
But I could also see people making the choice to not work once they receive BI. Whether we want to call it a choice or incentive to not work doesn't really matter if the outcome is the same; they don't work because they don't have to.
The system is currently set up to make not working or at least keeping your income below a certain threshold the only *smart* choice. That's what I hate about it. A BI eliminates all that nonsense.
Not to mention what happened in Maine when non-disabled adults with no dependent children were expected to work and/or volunteer 20 hours a week to continue to receive SNAP benefits after 3 months.
So work 86 hours per month to get <$200 in foodtamps. Works out to ~$2/hr. And you are surprised that a lot of people declined? Most people getting foodstamps do have a job.
But I could also see people making the choice to not work once they receive BI. Whether we want to call it a choice or incentive to not work doesn't really matter if the outcome is the same; they don't work because they don't have to.
But if there really isn't enough work to go around any more, is that such a bad thing? Wouldn't it be better if the few jobs that are left go to the people who really WANT to be doing them?
But if there really isn't enough work to go around any more, is that such a bad thing? Wouldn't it be better if the few jobs that are left go to the people who really WANT to be doing them?
The few jobs left though? I think we are a generation or two away still from seeing a sustained unemployment rate do to automation and efficiency that would hover around 20%. I'm op n to the idea. But if we implemented it nation wide in say five years we would still have a ton of people working I would think. Not a few.
And this goes back to gradually lowering the population and encouraging a stay at home parent society. Easier said then done I know.
So work 86 hours per month to get <$200 in foodtamps. Works out to ~$2/hr. And you are surprised that a lot of people declined? Most people getting foodstamps do have a job.
This has nothing to do with those who are already working. The 9000 who dropped out of the program either had no job or weren't working at least 20 hours a week. If they were working 20 hours a week, they would have continued to be eligible for the program.
The majority of the non-working, non-disabled, no minor children people receiving SNAP benefits were unwilling to volunteer and/or work to keep the benefits. Guess they weren't food insecure to the level where getting off the couch to keep SNAP benefits was important to them.
If I was truly hungry, then yes, I would work/volunteer part time to retain SNAP benefits. Clearly these 9000 people didn't really need the benefit. Now the money that was being spent on them is freed up for people who are truly in need.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
