>this means that disability should be eliminated if this passes
That depends whether you think the point of disability benefit is to allow disabled people to survive, or to allow them have a comparable quality of life to an able bodied person.
Which able bodied person? The idea behind some of our middle class social programs seems to be more in the nature of a climbing harness than a safety net. Why is someone who was once well off but fell on hard times entitled to more help than someone who was born into hard times?
That can be debated, but I'd argue for somewhere around the median.
>Why is someone who was once well off but fell on hard times entitled to more help than someone who was born into hard times?
I'm not sure what you mean? I'm just suggesting we might want a supplementary income for disabled people, since they don't have the option to supplement their basic income with a job.
The entire idea behind the basic income is to stop trying to make distinctions between the deserving poor and the undeserving poor and to get rid of the entire gate-keeping infrastructure. Keep the existing cobweb of special purpose programs and you've destroyed a major point of the exercise.
If the BI is too low for disabled people, then it is too low.
> The entire idea behind the basic income is to stop trying to make distinctions between the deserving poor and the undeserving poor and to get rid of the entire gate-keeping infrastructure
Bingo. Well, it's not the entire idea, but it's definitely a very compelling idea.
>If the BI is too low for disabled people, then it is too low.
Whatever level you set it at, disabled people will get less money than able-bodied people on average, though no fault of their own. I don't think that's fair however you frame it.
A person who "fell on hard times" has at least in theory had the chance to try to save past income, and has a realistic prospect of earning higher income in future, assuming the BI is insufficiently generous to dissuade them from seeking paid employment altogether. Given that the average annual income of an able bodied person over the course of their life really ought to be higher than that of a too-disabled-to-work person, it doesn't seem unreasonable to redistribute less money towards their needs in a period when they're not in work.
Which able bodied person should be the ceiling on too-disabled-to-work people's income? Not sure, but I'm reasonably confident that "the most unambitious and indolent one" is not the correct answer.
A basic income would almost certainly improve the quality of life of many disabled persons.
Remember, disability is not a binary state, government mandate nothwithstanding. Many disabled persons could in fact do a limited amount of certain kinds work each week, say 10 hours. Also, many people get on disability at some time and find that over time, they get better, or adapt to their disability.
But under SSI regulations, all of these people would lose 100% of their disability if the government finds out they're working. What this does is condemn a lot of people to lives of poverty when they could be living a lifestyle closer to middle class with just 10-20 hours of employment each week.
Also, getting on disability is a long, drawn-out, humiliating process. Some people have philosophical objections to being on disability. And so many people who probably should be on at least partial disability forgo the whole process. A basic income would allow these people some relief.
I really like the idea of basic income. I think you bring up an excellent point about degree of disability. I think it's really unlikely BI would be at the same level as someone on full disability. However, i do think the VA's model of % disability is helpful here.
BI would (i hope) replace the first say, 10-20% brackets. Hopefully, that would simplify VA administration, so they could focus on specializing support for higher % disability servicemen.
Why not just replace it with an insurance system like Aflac? Aflac is a type of insurance that bridges the game and provides extra money to bring the person back up to whatever level they were accustomed to before.
If minimum income is enough to allow everyone to live comfortably, I don't see why the government would need to provide additional insurance for emergencies.
>If minimum income is enough to allow everyone to live comfortably
That depends what you mean by "comfortably". Most basic income proposals suggest a level that is survivable, but which still provides significant incentive to supplement it with a job.
Living on the absolute minimum, for whatever reason, should be a choice. Disabled people don't get to make that choice.
That depends whether you think the point of disability benefit is to allow disabled people to survive, or to allow them have a comparable quality of life to an able bodied person.