The idea of using cash instead of vouchers has gotten a boost from successful pandemic aid programs, as well as from dozens of basic income experiments around the country. Philadelphia is already testing this, giving cash directly to 300 renters. The federal government is now exploring that on a far bigger scale.
He says a key goal of cash is getting people housed faster. So one big challenge will be how to carry out inspections without slowing down the lease process. One option could be a self-inspection.
“We might have a checklist and say ‘these are the things I’m looking for.’ It may be that I move in with cash and then after I’ve moved in, the agency comes and does an inspection,” McCabe says. And maybe that inspection is done remotely over video.
I agree with your intent for the most part, but saying to get rid of social security is the worst thing you could say. You can have UBI aaaaand Social Security. There is no need to get rid of one. They can compliment each other and work together. If we went with your plan, the r’s would somehow figure out how to get rid of social security and never replace it because they’re evil and want that money for ??? They don’t seem to be selling themselves for much.
I’m not going to argue with you, I think we’re just seeing it from different sides. You think it’s great since the numbers might work out and I’m saying politically it would be a disaster.
That’s not happening. Just look at how Republicans tip-toe around the issue of Social Security and Medicare, while still trying to argue against entitlements (which is weird, because SS is the biggest entitlement there is, followed closely by Medicare).
And no, I don’t think we can have UBI and Social Security, the tax burden is just too high, so it’s never going to get out of committee, much less into law. It doesn’t matter if it’s just getting redistributed, the numbers are political suicide. Best case scenario, a very small UBI gets passed and it’s shown to be ineffective (because it’s so small), and then canned forever.
I think the right approach is to say Social Security is not going away, it’s just changing, but not for older people (i.e. the voting base that are depending on it). I think it’s super important to show how it will still provide for those who need it (i.e. those w/o retirement savings), while using tax dollars more effectively (i.e. not paying as much to rich people). Initial surpluses would go toward ensuring SS doesn’t have to change for those near retirement, and later they could be exchanged for retirement savings (i.e. you pay less SS tax if you fund your retirement accounts by X% of your reported income).
If you want an economic argument for it, look to Milton Friedman, a well-respected conservative economist. Here’s the Wikipedia article about NIT if you want to read more. So you have conservatives proposing a very progressive tax policy, yet progressives seem to want nothing to do with it. In my understanding, it’s just an optimized form of UBI (which is popular among progressives) where the tax revenue hit is much smaller (scares fewer fiscal conservatives away). Instead of having it get reduced over time, I think there’s a good argument for it being increased as other welfare programs can get lumped in with it (no need for housing or food assistance if you are guaranteed to be above the poverty line).
They’ve tried before, look it up.
It doesn’t have to be. Bringing healthcare costs down by nationalizing it would be a start. Also, UBI and Social Security are going to compliment each other, so there is a lot of overlap. Again, I think we’re just going to disagree. This is my last comment.
Fair, have a great day. I do recommend reading more about it when you get a chance, maybe you’ll change your mind.