You're gonna end up paying whatever the dollar value of "freedom restriction" directly to the people who didn't save, because you've agreed to help them financially.

I don't concede that it's "forcing them to not be dumb" or "a net reduction of your financial freedom."

You'd just be taxed AT GUNPOINT ZOMG to help these people if it wasn't through social security. And, again, we basically all agreed to help these people

And by "these people" it is "nearly everyone"

Lmao.

Oh look, another young healthy white guy with a middle class upbringing and a good job - who otherwise opposes most social safety nets - backs UBI. Head scratcher.

Scores a double win: you can point to it and say "see I support *some* progressive positions" while also hoping for free money from the govt.

UBI, at least as a replacement for the safety net rather than an addition, is as ******ed as block granting medicaid.

And painting "the debt has favorable terms" as saying "NO DEBT CAN BE BAD" is just not even trying.

If govt has $6T lying around, that's the sort of infusion into goods and services that might make America great again.

My view is admittedly simplistic, but in my mind, a reasonable role for government support programs would be to even out the variance in life. Get cancer? Don't worry, we have a robust health insurance program to make sure you don't go broke trying to stay alive. Born poor in the ghetto? We have a strong education system to support you regardless of your situation. (I realize neither of those things are currently true).
SS doesn't fit in that view for me. In this simplified hypothetical I've created, we've built a strong Healthcare system and a strong education system, so if you haven't made some retirement money after 45 years of working then that's probably on you.

GRUNCH: bot botting. read elizabeth warrens book "the two income trap" or "the fragile middle class"

Well, yeah, that view is based on false premises, which you seem to realize.

But even if it was "probably on you" instead of "possibly on you", we've agreed that doesn't matter, we are still going to give you financial assistance. Because we feel bad if we didn't, because there are actually economic strains if we didn't, and because it doesn't cost as much as it "seems" anyway, since you're going to spend it immediately on services you need to live.

I think it saves money and also makes people feel way better to have this assistance work this way, but I'm fine if you want to eliminate it as long as you replace it with the same amount of assistance that comes from elsewhere.

But that's not how it works in America. It won't get replaced. Definitely not fully, and definitely not without a long gap in time that killed people.

Like someone else suggested, people aren't just going to die in the streets bc you take social security away. They'll rely on family, friends, their community, and charities. It also adds incentive to build out your own support system if you know the government won't provide a safety net.

I also agree with what bware says above. We should focus on healthcare and education. Then with UBI of you can't afford a place to live or to retire that's on you.

once you turn 65 you should be sent in front of a nra firing squad. solves every single monetary related problem we have. optimizes the efficiency and productivity of the economy! yes! technology! synergy!

What if we lowered taxes by 5% for everyone, but instead asked people to donate that 5% to a qualified charity of their choice? I could see lots of soup kitchens, food banks, medical research/help, and low income housing organizations flush with more money than ever.

We answered this a hundred years ago or more.

If you want to use tax money on poor homes and on increased medicaid and all that, ok, but that's actually a step backwards. That stuff was replaced, with social security, because of how awful and ineffective that stuff was.

people will absolutely die in the streets and die earlier, among other things.

TOONCES, look out.

All that stuff was proven wrong, and necessitated social security.

Buikding a robust support system as a form of saving for retirement has the same problem as saving money for retirement. It's not always due to bad decisions that you are left without support.

And get this, if you have the basic means to live, you can continue to build that support network your entire life. Or you could even be support for someone else who needs it!

you can't ask them. they won't do it. you have to make it hip to fund all this boring, unsexy ****. how to do this?

explain why they would die in the streets without social security if they have UBI

I mean Jesus Christ. "Just make good friends! Friends good enough to give you money! Also, I don't understand what the word 'incentivize' means!"

I agree that if CDL's ideas got implemented, everyone that's similar to him on a socioeconomic level and privilege would have zero problems and max freedom

what's so special about social security that would save people where UBI won't? If you're collecting the max from social security then you should have had the means to save more during your working years. If you're not then UBI is probably providing the same amount of money.

What else can it be besides bad decisions and bad luck? Both are a part of life and that's ok. We don't need to smooth out life so people have a narrow range of experiences and outcomes. Variance in outcomes and experiences due to luck isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it seems like people are treating it as such.

Compel them or give incentives.

It seems like that to you because you're approaching black hole levels of density.

Awww sorry poor guy who lost the genetic/financial/medical lottery. Can't smooth out life variance bro, that extra 1% marginal tax rate increase simply steps on too many toes. hope you understand.

But you're the one arguing that if something bad happens to someone we need to help them. I think that should be an individual decision. People should be able to choose to help others if they wish, but not compelled to help those who were given a chance and now face hardships due to either bad decisions or bad luck.

lol i guess you might be right that they won't literally die in the streets. but all else equal they will die because you take SS away, yeah.

very idyllic. it would work great if only these avenues were able to provide enough to ensure those people's well-being. unfortunately, they don't.

At least they had incentive though!