You want to talk government waste? I bet if we replaced all our piecemeal heavily means-tested social programs with a Universal Basic Income, a nice chunk of the cost will be covered by the savings of dismantling those beaurocracies alone.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
Well, I guess that means giving Social Security recipients a basic income. Tell us how much that basic income would be? Is it enough to live on? And would it cover healthcare costs that are currently covered by Medicare or would we have universal health insurance? Etc.
I think a good base goal is to continue receiving the Social Security and Medicare benefits you spent all your working life earning. Also Medicaid, so that poor kids and the elderly get medical care.
But you see I was talking about the admin costs. That was the context of the conversation, whether or not the admin costs represented a significant factor of the increased cost of UBI relative to SS. They don't.
I think we should start small, by giving UBI only to corporations with $100 million or more in annual sales. If it works out for them (i.e. they don't just pay it out to shareholders but otherwise close for business), then maybe a larger trial for corporations making only $25M or more.
If we committed to it being something that's actually going to help one survive in a worst case scenario, it would actually be a boost for most existing recipients.
For example: SSI (in Virginia anyway) still hasn't breached $1k/mo, in 2025.
(further thoughts) when I was 70% with the VA (now ~$1750/mo I think) I squeezed by alright on my own by holding out for the right housing payment. A roommate would have also worked.
That's only 21k, but combined with M4A, and a big housing push - everyone could enjoy a baseline existence.
Freeing citizens to chase their interests instead of dollars would lead to an artistic and scientific revolution. Too many brilliant minds are stifled by capitalism.
It will allow all citizens to choose a path that fulfills their individual needs. One person’s contentment is another’s version of hell. So who are we to decide for them? Afterall, isn’t freedom to live your life without interference the goal?
Strong agree. I imagine a large part of that funding would come from taxing those companies, essentially doing just that. If you get to monopolize data you should at least support the people you get to exploit.
If you haven't, consider looking into paying for email instead of feeding big tech (cont)
This would save a lot. But it's unclear to me how to combat prices going up. If every landlord knows everyone is now getting 1k income at the minimum they can just all raise their rent a bunch.
I mentioned in another reply also pushing new housing, but overall I think no matter how this resolves there's going to need to be new guardrails considered, right?
Instead of just placing the most minimal bandage, why not actually address the issue and place a cap on housing profits? (cont)
Change is scary, but the answer isn't letting them continue to extort us. We need to expand housing policy, and move Americans away from housing as a primary investment vehicle.
That would long term help the problem, but in the short term if we HAVE to cap profits on housing to get it done 🤷
Definitely. I think a lot of people are too focused on letting details get in the way and being problem focused instead of solution focused. I just brought up price increases to move the conversation forward, since it is worth considering *how* to mitigate.
I am skeptical of price caps specifically. From my understanding these, at least historically, resulted in wack-a-mole situations where they just try to get profit in other ways (e.g. new fees) or supply craters. Surely there is some way this can be handled that doesn't result in those two though.
Comments
Let’s have both robust social programs AND universal basic income for the best of both worlds.
How much is above my pay grade, but I feel like "able to afford a cheap spot or a nice one with a roommate" is a nice base goal.
UBI of $1500 a month (less than the average SS check by a fair margin) would be an annual cost of about 6 trillion.
Seems like there's certainly some money to be saved there, but like, UBI is a whole other scale.
Saving money on overhead is a fart in a fucking hurricane here and projected tax revenue isn't going to change that one iota.
Plenty of issues won't be magically solved by UBI, but it's a start.
We cannot accept dismantling of social programs FIRST. We can't sacrifice the most vulnerable.
https://www.scottsantens.com/negative-income-tax-is-not-cheaper-than-universal-basic-income-ubi-nor-is-guaranteed-income-more-progressive-by-excluding-the-rich/
For example: SSI (in Virginia anyway) still hasn't breached $1k/mo, in 2025.
That's only 21k, but combined with M4A, and a big housing push - everyone could enjoy a baseline existence.
Freeing citizens to chase their interests instead of dollars would lead to an artistic and scientific revolution. Too many brilliant minds are stifled by capitalism.
And people who think.
If the government subsidizes your rent instead of handing you a check, it’s virtually the same thing as far as your stability is concerned.
And I’m sure there’s a ton more cost cutting measures you can implement in such a system
If people’s data is valuable, part of the value should be returned to the people.
If you haven't, consider looking into paying for email instead of feeding big tech (cont)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VZCu377NHE
Instead of just placing the most minimal bandage, why not actually address the issue and place a cap on housing profits? (cont)
That would long term help the problem, but in the short term if we HAVE to cap profits on housing to get it done 🤷