Wacfl 5 neg3 - It is a speech PDF

Preview

Summary

It is a speech...

Description

Neg My partner and I negate the resolution. Resolved: The United States should replace means tested welfare with a universal income.

Contention one: UBI untested

UBI not tested large scale enough for the U.S Annunziata, Marco. “Universal Basic Income: A Universally Bad Idea.” Forbes , Forbes Magazine, 27 July 2018, www.forbes.com/sites/marcoannunziata/2018/07/27/universal-basic-income-a-universally-bad-id ea/#2189de913269.

Universal Basic Income is and unconditional cash payment to all citizens regardless of wealth or employment status and without requirements or stipulations If you ask, “why do we need UBI?”, most proponents respond “because the robots will soon take all the jobs”. That is why UBI is so popular in Silicon Valley, from Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg to countless start-up wizards. “And UBI is already being tested in many places” they will add. You think about this, and then ask, “why are we testing it?” “To make sure people will use it to learn new skills and look for a job, or set up their own business.”

 e run pilot projects to make sure UBI will not stop w people from looking for a job. But…

In other words,

…you just told me there will be no jobs… The technological argument for UBI is rubbish. When unsupervised robots can produce the entire U.S. GDP, by all means, let’s divide the fruits of their labor equally across the entire population. That’s easy, no need to run pilot programs. (How people will find fulfillment in that utopian world is a more troubling question.)

The reason people run UBI experiments, of course, is they do not believe for a second that the machines will do all the work. Which means that to finance UBI, enough people will have to work,

produce, earn and be taxed. Hence the concern on how UBI would impact work incentives. (By the way, these experiments consist in giving a small monthly payment to a tiny minority among the poor and unemployed, for a limited period; thus, being neither universal nor permanent they teach us nothing about how UBI would work.)

UBI would send exactly that wrong-headed message, reducing people’s incentive to work. And it would get worse. Our concept of a dignified life is relative. Getting by on my guaranteed basic income, I will look at my richer, working peers and feel that my lifestyle is not quite dignified. So I will lobby politicians for an increase in UBI. As UBI rises, even fewer people will work; those who still work will have to be taxed more, and so even fewer people will work, and… If you doubt these arguments, consider that advanced economies are already littered with young people with college degrees no employer considers useful—while ancient Greek literature may be a passion, it does not guarantee a job and a living wage. The countries toying with the idea of UBI—all advanced economies—are deep in debt, with pitifully low productivity growth and a massive looming rise in pension and health care expenditures (think of Italy, where the populist Five Stars movement secured one-third of the vote in the last elections by promising UBI). They desperately need to generate more income and spend it wisely—it makes no sense to waste money on those who do not need it.

Contention 2 UBI’s are expensive

Cost is not worth the risk of untested UBI’s Acemoglu, Daron. “Why Universal Basic Income Is a Bad Idea.” MarketWatch , MarketWatch, 19 June 2019, www.marketwatch.com/story/why-universal-basic-income-is-a-bad-idea-2019-06-19.

But UBI is a flawed idea, not least because it would be prohibitively expensive unless accompanied by deep cuts to the rest of the safety net. In the U.S. (population: 327 million), a UBI of just $1,000 per month would cost around $4 trillion per year, which is close to the entire federal budget in 2018. Without major cost savings, federal tax revenue would have to be doubled, which would impose massive distortionary costs on the economy. And, no, a permanent UBI could not be financed with government debt or newly printed currency. Sacrificing all other social programs for the sake of a UBI is a terrible idea. Such programs exist to address specific problems, such as the vulnerability of the elderly, children, and disabled people. Imagine living in a society where children still go hungry, and where those with severe health conditions are deprived of adequate care, because all the tax revenue has gone to sending monthly checks to every citizen, millionaires and billionaires included.

The same is true of programs that unconditionally guarantee support for basic needs, such as food for the hungry and unemployment insurance for the jobless. Such policies are widely popular in the countries that have them. Finally, much of the enthusiasm for UBI is based on a misreading of employment trends in advanced economies. Contrary to

there is no evidence that work as we know it will disappear anytime soon.

popular belief, 

Automation and globalization are indeed restructuring work, eliminating certain types of jobs and increasing inequality. But rather than build a system where a large fraction of the population receives handouts, we should be adopting measures to encourage the creation of “middle-class” jobs with good pay, while strengthening our ailing social safety net. UBI does none of this. In the U.S., the top policy goals should be universal health care, more generous unemployment benefits, better-designed retraining programs, and an expanded earned income tax credit (EITC). The EITC already functions like a guaranteed basic income for low-wage workers, costs far less than a UBI, and directly encourages work.

Total welfare spending in FY 2015 equaled $1.08 trillion. https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_welfare_spending_40.html

Response to Goes back into the economy Archetto, Greg. “Implementation of a 'Universal Basic Income' Program Would Be a Disaster.” TheHill, 16 July 2018, thehill.com/opinion/finance/397192-implementation-of-a-universal-basic-income-programwould-be-a-disaster.

The Hill wrote in July 16 2018 that

If everyone had suddenly had an extra 10K a year, and everyone knew that everyone had an extra 10K prices would go up and inflaton would rise thus negating the perceived gains of such a program. As prices went up, wages would need to follow, which would make prices go up even higher in an upward inflationary spiral. Notes: What happens when we always give more and more money. What happens when a family needs medical help and they dont have enough money because inflation made the price of their house go up? So increasing taxes on businsses doesnt that make them raise prices? So they inflate prices to compensate for their tax, Talk about how the economy would spiral to where to value of the dollar gets hurt because of this 4 trillion dollar untested and unreliable idea that takes away american jobs. We win because they ceded to our definition of a UBI as a Universal Basic Income Which says unconditional cash payment to all citizens regardless of wealth or employment status and WITHOUT REQUIREMENTS AND STIPULATIONS. THerefore theyre changing the definition of a UBI and dont know what theyre arguing for. A UBI is no restrictions or requirements and you have to vote them down for that. They are changing the debate and making it unfair. But if you dont vote on that which you should, you should vote for theese reasons.

Why we win… 1. The econmy would collapse you cant just redistribuite 4 trillion dollars in the us econmy

2. The money to pay for this UBI ultimately, comes out of your pocket as there is a 3 trillion dollar remain 3. And their case deincintivises american jobs...