Which able bodied person? The idea behind some of our middle class social programs seems to be more in the nature of a climbing harness than a safety net. Why is someone who was once well off but fell on hard times entitled to more help than someone who was born into hard times?
That can be debated, but I'd argue for somewhere around the median.
Why is someone who was once well off but fell on hard times entitled to more help than someone who was born into hard times?
I'm not sure what you mean? I'm just suggesting we might want a supplementary income for disabled people, since they don't have the option to supplement their basic income with a job.
The entire idea behind the basic income is to stop trying to make distinctions between the deserving poor and the undeserving poor and to get rid of the entire gate-keeping infrastructure. Keep the existing cobweb of special purpose programs and you've destroyed a major point of the exercise.
If the BI is too low for disabled people, then it is too low.
The entire idea behind the basic income is to stop trying to make distinctions between the deserving poor and the undeserving poor and to get rid of the entire gate-keeping infrastructure
Bingo. Well, it's not the entire idea, but it's definitely a very compelling idea.
If the BI is too low for disabled people, then it is too low.
Whatever level you set it at, disabled people will get less money than able-bodied people on average, though no fault of their own. I don't think that's fair however you frame it.
A person who "fell on hard times" has at least in theory had the chance to try to save past income, and has a realistic prospect of earning higher income in future, assuming the BI is insufficiently generous to dissuade them from seeking paid employment altogether. Given that the average annual income of an able bodied person over the course of their life really ought to be higher than that of a too-disabled-to-work person, it doesn't seem unreasonable to redistribute less money towards their needs in a period when they're not in work.
Which able bodied person should be the ceiling on too-disabled-to-work people's income? Not sure, but I'm reasonably confident that "the most unambitious and indolent one" is not the correct answer.
Comments
Which able bodied person? The idea behind some of our middle class social programs seems to be more in the nature of a climbing harness than a safety net. Why is someone who was once well off but fell on hard times entitled to more help than someone who was born into hard times?
That can be debated, but I'd argue for somewhere around the median.
I'm not sure what you mean? I'm just suggesting we might want a supplementary income for disabled people, since they don't have the option to supplement their basic income with a job.
The entire idea behind the basic income is to stop trying to make distinctions between the deserving poor and the undeserving poor and to get rid of the entire gate-keeping infrastructure. Keep the existing cobweb of special purpose programs and you've destroyed a major point of the exercise.
If the BI is too low for disabled people, then it is too low.
Bingo. Well, it's not the entire idea, but it's definitely a very compelling idea.
Whatever level you set it at, disabled people will get less money than able-bodied people on average, though no fault of their own. I don't think that's fair however you frame it.
A person who "fell on hard times" has at least in theory had the chance to try to save past income, and has a realistic prospect of earning higher income in future, assuming the BI is insufficiently generous to dissuade them from seeking paid employment altogether. Given that the average annual income of an able bodied person over the course of their life really ought to be higher than that of a too-disabled-to-work person, it doesn't seem unreasonable to redistribute less money towards their needs in a period when they're not in work.
Which able bodied person should be the ceiling on too-disabled-to-work people's income? Not sure, but I'm reasonably confident that "the most unambitious and indolent one" is not the correct answer.