Current Events > At a center-left policy conference; lots of means-tested vs universal discussion

(+) Yeah! (+)

s0nicfan posted...

Okay, so they get an old standard definition 32" tube TV, and the computer is just fast enough to browse the web (also is internet now part of this UBI package? And if so is it just dial up?). And that's being generous because if your concern is "news" then you could give them a free subscription to the newspaper of their choice and cut out the TV.

The tube TV is junk and more expensive to acquire in large quantities as you'll have to ship them from many different locations. They can do with a regular 720p 32 inch LCD or LED TV.

For the TV, they can use an antenna. The internet would just be government subsidized sattelite. If I were in charge, I'd let cable companies deduct 100% of normal ticket price for every free basic cable package they give out.
---

Balrog0 posted...

Eh I don't want to get too caught up on a particular program, my point is that this idea that there is benefits creep driven by program participants seems very speculative. Are there any examples of that happening in practice? It seems to me most things get pared back, whether universal or means-tested, with very few exceptions.

If you want to limit it to an existing entitlement being expanded due to participant demand, you could look at social security struggling under the weight of an aging boomer population as an example. That being said, I'd argue that the creation of new entitlements programs is a form of benefits creep.
---

but to respond briefly on the substance of your post, there are various mechanisms the government can use to subsidize housing other than public housing -- in fact, most of HUD's low income housing assistance already goes to section 8 vouchers or funds housing construction through low income housing tax credits, at least I thought so I'm having trouble finding the numbers

its not much different than the kind of public-private partnerships that often fund infrastructure
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Okay, so they get an old standard definition 32" tube TV, and the computer is just fast enough to browse the web (also is internet now part of this UBI package? And if so is it just dial up?). And that's being generous because if your concern is "news" then you could give them a free subscription to the newspaper of their choice and cut out the TV.

The tube TV is junk and more expensive to acquire in large quantities as you'll have to ship them from many different locations. They can do with a regular 720p 32 inch LCD or LED TV.

For the TV, they can use an antenna. The internet would just be government subsidized sattelite. If I were in charge, I'd let cable companies deduct 100% of normal ticket price for every free basic cable package they give out.

So now to support UBI we've determined that "universal basic" includes a free LCD TV, cable, a computer and internet, and we might have to create an entirely new government subsidized satellite program to support it, or alternatively cover the costs of subsidizing Comcast, and we haven't even determined what it means if a person lives where they don't have access to Cable. We also haven't scratched the surface of what a person is owed if they break their free TV. Do they lose that benefit forever?

My point is UBI and programs like it are extremely hard to define and would make a lot of people unhappy if they saw the details, which is why it's frustrating to see people propose universal programs when they damn well know they're not going to put their own neck out to define them.
---

s0nicfan posted...

If you want to limit it to an existing entitlement being expanded due to participant demand, you could look at social security struggling under the weight of an aging boomer population as an example. That being said, I'd argue that the creation of new entitlements programs is a form of benefits creep.

yeah but this isn't an example of the program participants saying stuff like 'well I need a bigger TV and a better computer' -- they aren't asking for more than previous generations got, they're asking for the same amount but there are more people and the program isn't funded in a way that pays for itself like it supposedly is intended to

I would say it is an example of the problems with universal programs, though. Or at least the kind that are contributory. Idk. I get what you're saying but it seems like a totally different thing to me.
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

The tube TV is junk and more expensive to acquire in large quantities as you'll have to ship them from many different locations. They can do with a regular 720p 32 inch LCD or LED TV.

If anything, a modern LCD tv would be much cheaper than a heavy glass-and-lead CRT tv.
Walmart and Bestbuy start around $70-80 for a small one nowadays. Wholesale "gubmint" televisions at a contracted price would probably be cheaper.

Balrog0 posted...

yeah but this isn't an example of the program participants saying stuff like 'well I need a bigger TV and a better computer' -- they aren't asking for more than previous generations got, they're asking for the same amount but there are more people and the program isn't funded in a way that pays for itself like it supposedly is intended to

I would say it is an example of the problems with universal programs, though. Or at least the kind that are contributory. Idk. I get what you're saying but it seems like a totally different thing to me.

Well okay, then what about looking at the details for things like SNAP and the ongoing debate as to what should and shouldn't be covered under it? Things like junk food or soda being a particularly high-demand "luxury" item that people think SNAP shouldn't cover. The link below outlines how the program has expanded since conception and how various acts have rolled in things like addict treatment to what was meant to be a food program.

https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/short-history-snap
---

s0nicfan posted...

Well okay, then what about looking at the details for things like SNAP and the ongoing debate as to what should and shouldn't be covered under it? Things like junk food or soda being a particularly high-demand "luxury" item that people think SNAP shouldn't cover. The link below outlines how the program has expanded since conception and how various acts have rolled in things like addict treatment to what was meant to be a food program.

1) that isn't an example of people asking for the program to expand, that is an example of people trying to pare the program back. unless I'm missing something

2) the addiction part you're looking at just expanded SNAP benefits to addiction treatment centers; it's actually a way for the institution to offset the costs of housing so many people.
---

I mean, granted, allowing people in rehab to access SNAP benefits did expand the program, I'm not saying it didn't. But largely by allowing people who would have qualified for the benefit otherwise to get it while institutionalized in that narrow way. Not exactly asking for more stuff...
---

Balrog0 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Well okay, then what about looking at the details for things like SNAP and the ongoing debate as to what should and shouldn't be covered under it? Things like junk food or soda being a particularly high-demand "luxury" item that people think SNAP shouldn't cover. The link below outlines how the program has expanded since conception and how various acts have rolled in things like addict treatment to what was meant to be a food program.

1) that isn't an example of people asking for the program to expand, that is an example of people trying to pare the program back. unless I'm missing something

2) the addiction part you're looking at just expanded SNAP benefits to addiction treatment centers; it's actually a way for the institution to offset the costs of housing so many people.

The link provides better examples of how it was expanded multiple times over the lifetime of the program. You're correct in that the junk food example specifically is an example of potentially pairing back benefits, but it still makes a compelling use case for how difficult it can be to define the specifics of the program. For example, one study found that something significant amount of SNAP benefits went to soda and junk food. Does the program need more money to cover people if it's having financial troubles, or are people wasting the money they're being given? (No need to answer here, just wanted to touch on how those sorts of things play out)

EDIT: That's not 60%. It was $66B
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/02/17/getting-soda-out-of-snap/?utm_term=.90d2f4148400
---

s0nicfan posted...

Tyranthraxus posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Okay, so they get an old standard definition 32" tube TV, and the computer is just fast enough to browse the web (also is internet now part of this UBI package? And if so is it just dial up?). And that's being generous because if your concern is "news" then you could give them a free subscription to the newspaper of their choice and cut out the TV.

The tube TV is junk and more expensive to acquire in large quantities as you'll have to ship them from many different locations. They can do with a regular 720p 32 inch LCD or LED TV.

For the TV, they can use an antenna. The internet would just be government subsidized sattelite. If I were in charge, I'd let cable companies deduct 100% of normal ticket price for every free basic cable package they give out.

So now to support UBI we've determined that "universal basic" includes a free LCD TV, cable, a computer and internet, and we might have to create an entirely new government subsidized satellite program to support it, or alternatively cover the costs of subsidizing Comcast, and we haven't even determined what it means if a person lives where they don't have access to Cable. We also haven't scratched the surface of what a person is owed if they break their free TV. Do they lose that benefit forever?

My point is UBI and programs like it are extremely hard to define and would make a lot of people unhappy if they saw the details, which is why it's frustrating to see people propose universal programs when they damn well know they're not going to put their own neck out to define them.

I'm perfectly willing to define them. I'm also not running for anything and there isn't a political need for me to successfully convince anyone else so it's not quite the same thing, but if you want to debate the principles of why entertainment, news, and internet are/are not necessities we can do that instead.
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

I'm perfectly willing to define them. I'm also not running for anything and there isn't a political need for me to successfully convince anyone else so it's not quite the same thing, but if you want to debate the principles of why entertainment, news, and internet are/are not necessities we can do that instead.

I think that would make for a fascinating discussion, honestly, but unfortunately I won't be around long enough to properly have it tonight. Perhaps another day, though.
---

s0nicfan posted...

The link provides better examples of how it was expanded multiple times over the lifetime of the program. You're correct in that the junk food example specifically is an example of potentially pairing back benefits, but it still makes a compelling use case for how difficult it can be to define the specifics of the program. For example, one study found that something like 60% of SNAP benefits went to soda and junk food. Does the program need more money to cover people if it's having financial troubles, or are people wasting the money they're being given? (No need to answer here, just wanted to touch on how those sorts of things play out)

well yeah I'm not disputing there are tough questions around these things, I just mean that the idea that programs are going to drift aimlessly toward expansion doesn't seem to be born out by past experience.

granted SNAP is an example of a program that's means-tested that I do feel has been pretty expansionary (more expansionary than most universal programs)
---

One more bump for the evening
---

There's two ways these should happen, without a hell of a lot in the middle:
Direct cash transfer, no strings
Direct transfer of whatever the entitlement is.

If you're afraid someone's squandering taxpayer money on doritos and soda, then ship a box of canned vegetables and dry rice instead.

Questionmarktarius posted...

There's two ways these should happen, without a hell of a lot in the middle:
Direct cash transfer, no strings
Direct transfer of whatever the entitlement is.

If you're afraid someone's squandering taxpayer money on doritos and soda, then ship a box of canned vegetables and dry rice instead.

Honestly I'm all for shipping out unused MREs.
---