My problem isn't with providing assistance to those who need it - it's the longevity that a lot of people stay on that assistance. I'm sorry, but 10 years or more of being on assistance is just to long of time. I don't know the exact answer because most of the time children are involved so we couldn't just pull the plug after a certain number of years but don't you agree there should be some type of limitation of time or dollars for folks receiving assistance?
Unless there is a strict way to control what and how the UBI was spent, this would turn into nothing more than the same money pit welfare programs already in place. Because I can promise you the first thing that would happen (if how the funds were spent weren't heavily controlled), would be the recipients would claim it wasn't enough and would need more. The government would then up the amount of the UBI. It still wouldn't be enough and it would be upped again. This would repeat itself over and over until it became the same out of control money pit our current programs have become.
Yep. My aunt is one of these people. Had more than three kids out of wedlock, knows EXACTLY how much she can make in reported income in order to receive her $6,000+ EIC money each year, on top of getting the maximum amount of money from the government on a monthly basis. Her line of thinking is (because she's said out loud to several family members who have confronted her) "Why should I try to get a job that requires me to work more to make more. When I get the same amount of total money and benefits by keeping my income where it is and letting the government provide the rest?" I've literally heard her say this and I promise you she's not the only person in this country who thinks and operates like this.
"Why work hard when I can just get my check?"
I agree. But I don't think that's a reason to avoid discussing or eventually attempting the idea.
Sure. Compared to existing programs, there's very little bureaucracy involved in simply cutting a check or awarding tax credits to everyone. Alaska seems to do it just fine.
*I'm not against discussing it. I just don't think people in government would have the rocks to let people suffer the consequences of wasting their UBI. Children would be used as pawns (as they are now) and they'd keep increasing the funds given. So why waste anyone's times discussing something that has the same fundamental problem as the program you're trying to replace? No accountability or consequences.
Yah, I'm familiar - and this read just as I expected.
