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.
If only we had like, universal vouchers, that all retailers accept and exchange for goods and services!
Like schrutebucks right?
How about this:
- convert Social Security to a negative income tax for those under 45 (those over 45 get SS as per normal, unless they opt-out)
- no SS benefits for those making >100k in retirement
- optionally get this as a monthly check based on prior year’s income tax
I feel like this would solve so many problems. And since it’s not UBI, it doesn’t have the same sticker shock and we can probably get away with keeping the SS tax where it is.
Giving people vouchers would just result in landlords raising rents and increasing profits. Cash is king, and if people already have housing (i.e. living with friends/family), they could use this cash for other necessities. There’s no reason to get some random agency involved, just let people pick their own housing…
I didn’t downvote you, but I strongly disagree with getting rid of Social Security. Hiding it in other ways would make it ripe for fucking with it, hiding other shit in it, etc., etc. It would be horrible in the long run.
I don’t think of it as “getting rid of Social Security,” but turning it into an actual safety net. Right now, it’s a retirement program, and kind of a crappy one at that since it only applies if:
- you’re old
- you’re young or have a disability that started when you were young and your parents are old
- you’re disabled
- your spouse is old and you have young kids
- your spouse died and you’re of the lower eligible age
2-5 are pretty niche circumstances, and all of them are based on someone’s income (either yours, your spouse’s, or your parents’). And for 1, a lot of people get benefits that really don’t need them. Even my parents, who earned a middle-class income their entire life, don’t need their Social Security benefits because their pension and 401k are sufficient for their desired lifestyle. There are a lot of people like that.
What happens if you’re poor? Screwed. What if your spouse dies before benefits eligibility? Screwed. Divorced? Mostly screwed.
If we transition Social Security into something like UBI (but means tested), we could ensure everyone is out of poverty, and without increasing the SS tax. Total Social Security tax receipts are a little over $1.2 trillion, 38 million people live below the poverty line, and the poverty threshold is $13.8k for individuals and $27.7k for a family of four. I don’t know how far the average person is from the poverty line, but if that $1.2T was given to 38M people, that’s $31.6k each, which is way more than we’d need to lift everyone out of poverty. Even half that is probably more than sufficient for people who have a job (probably more like 1/4 of that would be plenty).
So we could lift everyone out of poverty today by changing Social Security from a retirement program to an actual safety net. And we could scale the program up as you get older, so it can also function as a sort of retirement program. In fact, I think we should remove the income cap for the Social Security tax, reduce the tax a bit, end SS as we know it for people over a certain age, and start rolling this out to people immediately. Longer term, Social Security would provide benefits to everyone up to the poverty line and phase out once you get to 2x the poverty line or something like that. You wouldn’t get benefits if your retirement income is over a certain amount, so it keeps total outflows in check.
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.
the r’s would somehow figure out how to get rid of social security and never replace it
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).
That’s not happening
They’ve tried before, look it up.
And no, I don’t think we can have UBI and Social Security, the tax burden is just too high
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.
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.
No new money allocated, urging others to experiment and report back, years to research.
