To your first point I don’t think you can or should prevent making payments to someone who’s income has decreased substantially, my point is under the current system they get all of the money they are owed from social security while in this system when their income returns their payment decreases. This allows people to take more risk in their lives, maybe you had a great career making $250,000 per year but you decided you wanted to start a business, some businesses take years to become profitable and while $1,500 isn’t going to cover their expenses, it can definitely help them make that jump.
To your second point, a Negative income tax would be harder for the government to abuse than any of the other forms of UBI additionally, sunscreen it’s tied to your yearly tax return there is a lot more transparency on both sides.
Thirdly this is a form of UBI, I don’t see a problem with that, this is the only free market “welfare” program there is
As far as it being difficult, I think I left out a part at the end where I was going to mention people with addictions/mental illness or those who aren’t able to take care of themselves would be able to have someone else manage the money for them, this is something that already happens in our current system (I know because a family member of mine has this setup).
False. No one “pays into” SS, They’re taxed to pay others. No one is owed money. They’re paid by taxing others. SS taxes from the current working people pays for the currently retired people.
It is the SS tax of 12.4% (6.2% from the employer, 6.2% from the employee) that funds the checks going out to current beneficiaries. That’s the social contract we’ve made.
By law, the funds for SS can only be invested in instruments such as bonds - nothing risky and thus nothing with a particularly attractive rate of return. I don’t know, but maybe some portion of the SS fund - a very small portion say 5% - can be invested in American publicly traded companies that are growing/expanding in the US?
To think of SS as your future retirement is risky in my opinion. While I hope it will be there now and always, we can’t keep promising the moon. We need 2.9 workers per beneficiary – that will drop to 2 workers per beneficiary in 2030 per the SSA. And with the SS Fairness Act (nice name, hard to argue with it), a greater financial strain will be placed on the system by increasing benefits to people who did NOT pay SS tax because the act repeals “… provisions (that) reduced or eliminated the Social Security benefits of over 3.2 million people who receive a pension based on work that was not covered by Social Security (a “non-covered pension”) because they did not pay Social Security taxes.”
I’m close to being able to apply for my SS benefit and trust me I understand the fear (I didn’t plan or save as much as I should have) but to say that this is untouchable is unreasonable.
I’m not smart enough to figure out the middle ground but it’s gotta be in there somewhere!
To clarify, I don’t think the full budget of social services / welfare should be converted to NIT UBI, and it is my understanding we disagree on that point. If we don’t disagree on that, then I am unsure which programs would be retained under your proposal, as I am unclear on your third party money manager plan.
You claim NIT is superior, but you don’t provide an argument. I would like to try to steel-man your position, but I won’t right now.
Being a form of UBI changes how the idea should be evaluated. It is not merely being compared with the status quo or potential ideas, but with existing UBI proposals. You don’t mention any of these proposals, and when you replied to me, you merely claimed your position was superior to all of them- notably declining to provide reasoning.
Naturally people examining your position would be quite interested to know what you think of near alternatives, and how they compare to each other, your idea, and the status quo. Yet you don’t even mention UBI in your original proposal.
I will say that I support some form of UBI in the age of automation, as well as forms of communal ownership.
Your point on third party money managers is interesting, but I would want to see a policy that answers questions like “What if they have nobody whom they trust to do that for them?”
Many government welfare policies involve outsourcing that money-manager role to the state. Some may even outsource parts of it to non profits for all I know.
I do not believe that a system as simple as you described, can solve a problem as complex as poverty.
My friend, Social Security is a welfare program. But only because the powers that be want you to think that. Social Security is a tax. That’s the stick. The welfare part is the carrot. Social Security needs to be overhauled big time. And I agree no one who has not paid into Social Security should ever receive its benefits.
so its not welfare to pay into a system and expect a return. Many die before even collecting anything. Welfare is Not paying into a system and taking fromit. get a clue I will fight this and bring it to Trump’s attention this is horrible plan and ignorant. Cruel to those already that paid and are too old to work Your the bottom feeder that hates the elderly and would rather see them suffer than collect what is due them.
I am 77 years old and collecting Social Security. I have faith that President Trump will continue to support our senior citizens. I was just stating that I agree with the individual who showed the history of the Social Security Tax. Do your research. I do not appreciate being called a bottom feeder.
If you had a brain you would know if 7,000 is put into an acct when a child is born then it would accrue to 1,000,000 at retirement age. So we don’t need to overhaul anything. Just change it for the people not born yet BTW I dont give a crap about what you like or don’t like. Get over it.
The argument is whether SS is a pay-into-and-get-a-return (i.e. cash) system or a tax-and-pay-for-others. It can’t logically be both.
In fact, it’s the latter.
Normally, taxes have a “return” of benefits (e.g. cash, services, schools, infrastructure, etc.) as we pool money from the taxpayers and (if managed properly), pay for the shared benefits just listed.
SS does not do that. The return is a benefit to currently retired people (of whom I am one, but I make “too much” money, despite being poor, to get my full SSI for another few years). If that’s the current system, that’s the current system.
The point is, people are ignorant of the truth about SSI and then demand they get what they paid into it. Doesn’t work that way.
What to do about it? I don’t know. Overhaul? In what way? Terminate it? What’s the fallout?
I thought the context was clear. SSI in this context is Social Security Income, not Supplemental Security Income.
N.B.:
The Social Security Administration manages Social Security payments, commonly called SSI, Supplemental Security Income (per se), Social Security Disability Insurance, and Medicare, funded by Federal Insurance Contributions Act and Social Security taxes taken from your pay.
Shorthand: SSA manages SS(I), SSI, SSDI, and Medicare funded by FICA and SS taxes.
These taxes are used to pay (be they SS, SSI, SSDI, or Medicare) for others who already paid in the past, but can no longer work or are of retirement age even if they do work. If fewer people are paying SS taxes, the pool of money shrinks and you will get less or none, depending a number of factors.
Hence they yearly fear of SS money running low or running out.
The SSA does admnistrate SSI.
However, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is funded entirely through general federal tax revenues and not through Social Security payroll taxes.
My original post was regarding Social Security payments, commonly called Social Security Income (SSI). It was obvious by context that is was not Supplemental Security Income (SSI per se). But let’s say Social Secuirity Payments (SSP) instead, to avoid the pushback on “SSI”.
Over the years, I’ve witnessed people saying they expect to get SSP for what they “paid into” SS. (I used to think that, too, until I studied how it works.) That leads to wanting to “fix” SS where it can’t be fixed, because it doesn’t work that way in the first place.
I’m not proffering a fix, replacement, etc., just clarifying how it works, hoping that people will stop getting angry unnecessarily because they misunderstand how SSP work.
Regarding SSI per se:
The Social Security Administration manages Supplemental Security Income
Supplemental Security Income is funded through General Revenues
General Revenues are taxes
So SSP (no matter if they’re SS, SSI, SSDI, Medicare, etc.) are funded by taxes that we don’t get a direct benefit from. Others do. Back to my original point.
If we need to get a fix to SS, let’s come up with ideas to replace SS that will still support those who can’t work, so we can be good fellow citizens and human beings, and stop clamoring for what we’re “due” from the government based on not understanding how it works.
I do think all of these programs should be converted to NIT, although I did mention some people would qualify for a higher base income such as adults with dependents and retirees, I imagine there would also be a higher base pay for people with disability and possibly students.
I would be lying if I said there was only one way to set up these NIT benefits but I think the most important thing is streamlining the process of applying and receiving benefits by getting rid of means testing and make the distribution side more efficient and less costly by eliminating the large bureaucracy that is needed to manager our current programs. A higher percentage of the money spent is making it to the people that need it and they are able to get and use that money much easier.
The biggest reason I’m promoting NIT over UBI is that NIT is firstly more fair in that people who genuinely do not need the money do not receive it, and I know an argument for UBI is that people who make more money pay more in taxes but unfortunately that’s not always the case. For decades income made by your own sweat and blood has been taxed at rates higher (some times 2x) what people pay on investment income, that means they are paying a lower percentage in taxes and receiving the same amount of money from the government. Another reason is a NIT requires you to file your taxes yearly, this means the government is able to see exactly who is receiving that money and how much they actually need.
I believe our current system is well known for being inefficient and while and UBI system would be a marketable improvement on what we have now, this goes one step further into making the process easier for recipients, cheaper for the federal government to administer and more fair with less loopholes.
I agree with your comment on automation.
Largely people like PCA’s would be able to manage the money of people who are unable/unwilling to manage their own money but you’d be able to have any person or organization (parents, churches, local government, etc) manage that money for you. I am certainly open to receiving feedback on this part of the bill but as far as I am aware this is already the law for money coming from the federal government.
I believe the option to manage your own money is important and you shouldn’t be forced to have someone do it for you though there are definitely cases where you should have someone else manage your money.
I don’t think there is any aid program that can fully end poverty however I think this is a massive jump from where we are today and I think it is the best option going forward.
