An economics, investment, trading and policy blog with a focus on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). We seek the truth, avoid the mainstream and are virulently anti-neoliberalism.
It's ironic that this has 'better legs' than a job guarantee. It's an indication of how ineffectual the Left is compared to the Right. Americans value the notion of a work ethic, yet the Left is unable to tap into this sentiment with a JG.
Would implementing a UBI make it easier to subsequently end the welfare state?
"Would implementing a UBI make it easier to subsequently end the welfare state?"
Not really. UBI is just unemployment benefit/state pensions with knobs on, and it would suffer the same fate as unemployment benefit. Those who are judged 'not worthy' would have it excluded from them in the same way that UB has been run down over the past 50 years.
It's a very easy target for politicians to restrict UBI from the 'wealthy' and restrict UBI from the 'work shy' - because they "don't need it"/"aren't worth it".
But no doubt we have to go through the disastrous silly ideas before we get to the sensible one.
As ever you can always depend upon Americans to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all other possibilities.
Yes, it gets restricted as you describe, except that:
"More recently, the political scientist Charles Murray has advocated for a guaranteed income of $10,000 per person, coupled with a repeal of all other welfare transfer systems, including Social Security, food stamps, Medicare and Medicaid."
If these recommendations are followed, then we end up in a situation where programs from the original welfare state have been axed. Good luck to any politician that would try to restore them.
I always find it amusing that these guys don't realise that crippling the spending side auto stabilisers means that the tax side has to take up the strain.
I always find it amusing that these guys don't realise that crippling the spending side auto stabilisers means that the tax side has to take up the strain.
8 comments:
It's ironic that this has 'better legs' than a job guarantee. It's an indication of how ineffectual the Left is compared to the Right. Americans value the notion of a work ethic, yet the Left is unable to tap into this sentiment with a JG.
Would implementing a UBI make it easier to subsequently end the welfare state?
"Would implementing a UBI make it easier to subsequently end the welfare state?"
Not really. UBI is just unemployment benefit/state pensions with knobs on, and it would suffer the same fate as unemployment benefit. Those who are judged 'not worthy' would have it excluded from them in the same way that UB has been run down over the past 50 years.
It's a very easy target for politicians to restrict UBI from the 'wealthy' and restrict UBI from the 'work shy' - because they "don't need it"/"aren't worth it".
But no doubt we have to go through the disastrous silly ideas before we get to the sensible one.
As ever you can always depend upon Americans to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all other possibilities.
Yes, it gets restricted as you describe, except that:
"More recently, the political scientist Charles Murray has advocated for a guaranteed income of $10,000 per person, coupled with a repeal of all other welfare transfer systems, including Social Security, food stamps, Medicare and Medicaid."
If these recommendations are followed, then we end up in a situation where programs from the original welfare state have been axed. Good luck to any politician that would try to restore them.
I always find it amusing that these guys don't realise that crippling the spending side auto stabilisers means that the tax side has to take up the strain.
Right, Bob. The UBI has pretty consistently been a rightist proposal for that reason. It's another dupe the rubes deal.
Read his bio:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Murray_(political_scientist)
Anyone here who is familiar with his work?
In particular: In Our Hands: A Plan to Replace the Welfare State (2006)
I always find it amusing that these guys don't realise that crippling the spending side auto stabilisers means that the tax side has to take up the strain.
Or social unrest increases.
Post a Comment