> Assuming social security is replaced by basic income seems to be a fallacy.
No, its not a "fallacy", its a proposal. It may be politically difficult or undesirable, but that's not what "fallacy" means.
> Reducing SS payments, perhaps by a dramatic amount, is not going to go over well.
So, don't. Take as a short term cost that anyone who has established eligibility for SS (including people who have paid into it already but not yet reached retirement age) remain eligibility established based on their past earnings, but elimimate any future eligibility. However, SS benefits claimed are charged dollar for dollar againt BI -- no one loses SS benefits to BI, but you can't double dip the two. And, over time, SS fades away.
> Likewise, giving straight cash versus Medicare/Medicade does not work. You are basically telling people "I'm sorry, but you can either die of a treatable condition, or starve".
There is a real problem here, OTOH, it could be addressed (thinking of the smallest change from the status quo plus BI situation, rather than necessarily the ideal solution under BI) with an Obamacare-style health insurance purchase mandate, possibly with a provision for default assignment to a qualified plan -- whether public or privately-offered -- if one isn't actively selected.)
> The price of child care alone is huge.
That might actually change with BI; while I'd generally expect most prizes to rise slightly under BI, its at least plausible, intuitively, that BI would lead to a greater drop in demand for childcare than in supply, and decrease the market clearing cost.
>> ts at least plausible, intuitively, that BI would lead to a greater drop in demand for childcare than in supply, and decrease the market clearing cost.
How is that exactly? If you think people are going to stop working to take care of their kids, then the arguments about not changing GDP fall apart along with the whole plan.
> There is a real problem here, OTOH, it could be addressed (thinking of the smallest change from the status quo plus BI situation, rather than necessarily the ideal solution under BI) with an Obamacare-style health insurance purchase mandate, possibly with a provision for default assignment to a qualified plan -- whether public or privately-offered -- if one isn't actively selected.)
This doesn't solve any of the problem.
Health Insurance doesn't magically make health costs go down, collective bargaining for prices certainly does reduce prices, but there is a minimum.
Medicare is government subsidized health care plain and simple. If you remove that subsidy, people will end up paying more.
Yes in a sane country health care doesn't cost nearly as much as it does in America, but old people have a lot of health problems.
No, its not a "fallacy", its a proposal. It may be politically difficult or undesirable, but that's not what "fallacy" means.
> Reducing SS payments, perhaps by a dramatic amount, is not going to go over well.
So, don't. Take as a short term cost that anyone who has established eligibility for SS (including people who have paid into it already but not yet reached retirement age) remain eligibility established based on their past earnings, but elimimate any future eligibility. However, SS benefits claimed are charged dollar for dollar againt BI -- no one loses SS benefits to BI, but you can't double dip the two. And, over time, SS fades away.
> Likewise, giving straight cash versus Medicare/Medicade does not work. You are basically telling people "I'm sorry, but you can either die of a treatable condition, or starve".
There is a real problem here, OTOH, it could be addressed (thinking of the smallest change from the status quo plus BI situation, rather than necessarily the ideal solution under BI) with an Obamacare-style health insurance purchase mandate, possibly with a provision for default assignment to a qualified plan -- whether public or privately-offered -- if one isn't actively selected.)
> The price of child care alone is huge.
That might actually change with BI; while I'd generally expect most prizes to rise slightly under BI, its at least plausible, intuitively, that BI would lead to a greater drop in demand for childcare than in supply, and decrease the market clearing cost.