zoe Oct 6, 2023

Denver experimented with giving people $1,000 a month. It reduced homelessness and increased full-time employment, a study found.

https://infosec.pub/post/3384280

Denver experimented with giving people $1,000 a month. It reduced homelessness and increased full-time employment, a study found. - Infosec.Pub

cross-posted from: https://lemmit.online/post/1021018 [https://lemmit.online/post/1021018] > ##### This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot [https://lemmit.online/post/14692]. > The original was posted on /r/upliftingnews [https://old.reddit.com/r/UpliftingNews/comments/170ll80/denver_experimented_with_giving_people_1000_a/] by /u/DyeZaster [https://old.reddit.com/u/DyeZaster] on 2023-10-05 17:58:02. >

Show threadNahviOct 6, 2023

This is not a UBI Unconditional Basic Income this is a CBI Conditional Basic Income. The conditions currently being selected and being homeless.

Also this program basically already exists. It is just TANF selected for homelessness instead low-income families with children.

Show threadbob_wileyOct 7, 2023
As long as there are people who need money to put a roof over their head or food on the table, I don’t want universal basic income. The government giving me more money would be kind of dumb. They could lower my taxes if they want… same impact, but less back and forth.
Show threadspiderplantOct 7, 2023

Its usually cheaper to give everyone a small amount of money than it is to set up and pay a whole department of civil servants to figure out who qualifies and who doesn’t.

Also the poor and disabled suffer disproportionately when you start putting strict restrictions on financial aid. Just look at universal credit in the UK, in trying to save money/protect against the boogyman of welfare queens, they government has unqualified assessors trying to fail people even if they have serious disabilities.

Show threadbob_wiley

I get that. It just feels wrong to take it when I don’t need it, even if they are just giving me back my own money.

Of course, the covid relief checks did show us the problem with not giving it out to everyone. A person who made $100k in 2019, who go laid off, would’ve been passed over, from my understanding. So even though they needed the help, they wouldn’t get it without jumping through a lot of hoops.

Oct 7, 2023 at 10:33pmWeb
Show threadspiderplantOct 7, 2023

It’s not charity if everyone gets it, it’s levelling the field and making society fairer.

For the people who need it most it could mean life or death or being able to stay in their home or not have to choose between heat or food.

For those in the middle it might be a nice excuse to treat yourself.

For the richest it would be such an absurdly tiny amount of money they might not be able to spend it.

All we should care about is making sure as many people in the first group get the support. For basic income payments the most effective way to do that is to give it to everyone. By the government giving you that money instead of doing what I talked about above, more people were helped.

Also has the added bonus of countering slightly the siphoning of wealth from the poor to the rich that’s been happening the past while.

Show threadChunkOct 8, 2023

It’s not charity if everyone gets it, it’s levelling the field and making society fairer.

I like ubi a lot.

But I think this statement is not true actually. Removing UBI from the argument for a second, if we are children and we go find easter eggs and afterwards we take eggs from everyone and redistribute it so it’s more equal that’s charity.

Big Bill didn’t get as many eggs because he struggled with childhood diabetes.

Fast Francine got a lot of eggs because per parents put her on ADHD meds and she’s laser focused.

So if we take eggs from Francine and give them to bill now we’re doing charity.

Show threadspiderplantOct 8, 2023

Nah that’s not how the world works.

It’s closer to a school with 1000 students.

1 kid got 10000 eggs from their parents and refuses to share. Ther rest have 1-2 eggs each.

UBI is the school giving 2 eggs to every student. Now the egg distribution is more even since most students now have double the eggs but the richest students eggs only went up by a tiny percentage.

Show threadspiderplantOct 8, 2023

It gets even better when you ask where the parents got the money. Since its a closed loop you can’t really create money from nothing.

Let’s keep things simple, say the rich parents own all the shops and services in the town. All their money comes from the other parents of the town. The poorer parents have no choice where to buy things like food that they need, they can’t not pay their water bill or their heating. Buying their kids clothes and toys means giving more of their money to the rich parents. Now most of the parents can only afford a couple of eggs and the rich parents can afford a ridiculous number.

The ability for some to make large profits off humans basic needs is wrong and if you say any of this is fair then you should try and figure out why you think like this.

Show threadChunkOct 8, 2023

Charity: the voluntary giving of help, typically in the form of money, to those in need.

Sure Jan 😘

Show threadspiderplantOct 8, 2023

It specifically says to those in need. If you give it to more than those in need then its not charity.

Maybe you canconsider that as part of it charity has been given but the whole action is not charity.