Get rid of welfare and just give every adult $870/mo

[strawman]

Finland may be testing an interesting idea, where they would eliminate unemployment insurance and other welfare programs and simply give every adult $870/mo regardless of employment status or need.

If they do this it would happen in another year or so. Apparently this has been tried in smaller scale tests in the US and Canada decades ago. The thinking is that being on welfare reduces the desire to work minimum wage jobs because once you get the job you lose the welfare, and even if you make a little more, if you're making enough now to survive on welfare, why also work 8 hours a day for little more?

Under this method you'd continue to get the payment, and anything you work additionally adds to your basic income. The cost of living for the average student is right about this level, and education is free, so it's not too little to live on, though if you've got children if may be harder since only adults get the payment. The article suggests it would replace all other welfare, but I'm guessing child welfare programs might not go away completely.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Glob...izens-rich-or-poor-a-monthly-payment?cmpid=FB

I've not thought through the economic implications, other than they have a very high income tax rate, so this is not much different than a forced redistribution of wealth.

My concerns would be how this affects the basic cost of living, but since those on the dole are already getting this income, my initial guess is that not much will change.

But if someone simply socked half of it away in an interest bearing account, and lived with roommates on the other half, you might not have to work at all, ever, and you can pay yourself a nice salary later on in life depending on interest rates.

In a series of controlled experiments that the US government conducted around the country to test a basic income program during that time, it was found that the payments didn’t seem to affect poverty levels, and that participants receiving payments, particularly black families, appeared to divorce at much higher rates than the control groups

Looks like one of the larger unintended consequences is that it reduces pressure to marry for support. Could be yet another reason people choose not to get married in the long run.

 

[PatrThom]

We currently feed a household of 4-1/2 people on about $600-$700/mo. I monitor this with great interest.

--Patrick

 

[Eriol]

Things like this have been talked about for a while, but it's definitely gaining steam in the last few years.

For more reading, there was experiment with this in a Canadian town in the 1970s for a few years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MINCOME

One thing I've never seen addressed with such proposals, but should be: what adjustments should be made for housing costs and/or cost of living? For example, Vancouver, BC, is one of the most expensive places to live in the world whereas much of rural Newfoundland is pretty cheap. For a USA example, think Manhattan versus... rural Montana or something. The basic income in both places should NOT be the same, but how would it be determined in a way to stave off politics as much as possible?

 

[strawman]

Or do we simply acknowledge that some places will be too expensive in the government income and people will have to work if they want a good life there, or move if they want a good life without working.

 

[Denbrought]

(Prior: I'm a big fan of the idea of guaranteed income as a way to overhaul welfare within current capitalist societies)

One market solution I've heard a lot, particularly within effective altruist society, regarding the cost of living variance: let companies compete over it. If mincome is set at $X/day, companies should (will!) spring up that promise to take care of your needs (first and foremost housing) for a % of your daily mincome. A variety of %-levels will appear, with companies competing for different demographic profiles (adults, families, ...) and different management needs ("we'll house, feed, AND clothe you!"). Anything you may not be able to afford up-front (such as moving to the mincome community from a remote area or vice-versa) can be loaned at a floor rate, with payout guaranteed by a small % of your future mincome for a set time. Loans based on future mincome should be heavily regulated in order to prevent abuse and misuse (for example limiting them to transportation, medicine, education and other "essential categories").

To counter the "people are idiots" concern: companies would predictably spring up to manage your assets/mincome for you in order to guarantee that you are housed, clothed, fed, and financially solvent, for a % fee. If people cannot manage their own mincome, and as a result become destitute or burdens, they could be judicially ordered to turn over their mincome to such a company (which should have a fiduciary duty to its clients) for a set period of time. In case of crime, a person's mincome can serve to help in victim restitution (though not to offset the cost of their prison stay, as this is a very obvious perverse incentive).

And so on so forth.

 

[SpecialKO]

I can't find it at the moment, but Switzerland was planning something pretty similar a couple years ago. It got voted down at the legislature level so nothing ever came of it, but they were envisioning a $30K payout to every citizen of working age as a living stipend.

The concern there was a little different, though. Because Switzerland is very physically small and benefits from Schengen despite not being part of the EU, people who were earning an income in Switzerland (whether Swiss or not), were living and spending their wages in other countries instead of paying back into the Swiss economy because it was much cheaper to do so. The thought was that if you supplemented everyone's income, the lower and middle classes would be much more willing to live near where they worked and spend their money within Switzerland.

 

[AshburnerX]

Or do we simply acknowledge that some places will be too expensive in the government income and people will have to work if they want a good life there, or move if they want a good life without working.

Many places are too expensive to live because the market CAN bear the price, not because it MUST bear the price. Manhattan is a good example; things are so expensive there because the place is full of rich people and places rich people want to go and see... so the economy sort of became skewed because sellers figured they could get more this way. Of course, that flooded the area with money and artificially inflated the price of everything. Things cost more because people want to get rich off of other rich people, not because things are harder to get. Real estate is basically the only thing of value in the city that has reason for why it costs so much: people want to live there, so you get insane offers for housing.

Compare that to say... Hawaii. It's in the middle of the ocean, hundreds of miles from land and most of it's land is unsuitable for grazing. As such, things that don't transport well (eggs, milk, etc) cost a fucking fortune because of a real supply and demand problem.

As to the idea of a guaranteed income... the way the world economy is set up and because of the changing economics of scale, transportation, and energy usage, we're probably going to eventually reach the point where there is simply no reason to employ the vast majority of available workers. The only way to deal with this problem peacefully is a guaranteed income coupled with subsidized housing (and probably mass sterilizations). But that's unlikely to happen in a world where there are people who can be FORCED to work at gunpoint. So... barring a massive change in geopolitics or the invention of a post-scarcity economy, this sort of thing can really only happen as an experiment.

 

[Denbrought]

The only way to deal with this problem peacefully is a guaranteed income coupled with subsidized housing (and probably mass sterilizations). But that's unlikely to happen in a world where there are people who can be FORCED to work at gunpoint. So... barring a massive change in geopolitics or the invention of a post-scarcity economy, this sort of thing can really only happen as an experiment.

Mass sterilization? Are you assuming that idle humans would reproduce at unsustainably high rates? I find that unlikely, unless women's rights suffer a major setback, or birth control becomes some sort of lost technology.

Most mincome formulations at the country level are coupled with a 2-tier society of immigrants (who have to earn their right to mincome) and citizens, not unlike how the current U.S. immigration system functions (e.g. I'm effectively not eligible for any kind of state/federal aid for at least another 8 years).

I don't think I'm understand your concern about cheap/coerced labor elsewhere, could you clarify?

 

[AshburnerX]

Mass sterilization? Are you assuming that idle humans would reproduce at unsustainably high rates? I find that unlikely, unless women's rights suffer a major setback, or birth control becomes some sort of lost technology.

Most mincome formulations at the country level are coupled with a 2-tier society of immigrants (who have to earn their right to mincome) and citizens, not unlike how the current U.S. immigration system functions (e.g. I'm effectively not eligible for any kind of state/federal aid for at least another 8 years).

I don't think I'm understand your concern about cheap/coerced labor elsewhere, could you clarify?

Read the Isaac Asimov story The Last Question and think about that question: the issue isn't high rates of reproduction but an ever lengthening lifespan, the removal of most life threatening hazards, and a lack of space (unless you want to start seizing property too). Places get crowded and the entire point of having such a huge god damn population was to have them producing goods for others... when production is automated, you want less people because it's less idle hands to get into trouble. You have to reduce population just to keep order unless you want the proletariat, stuck with a basic income, to start revolting against those they perceive as (unfairly) having more.

As for my concern about cheap/coerced labor elsewhere... the whole point of the guaranteed income is to work as a social control in the face of a world that no longer has labor issues... but some regions (like North Korea) use forced labor as a means of controlling the population. They have no incentive of doing something like this; they want a beaten down population and the ability to force people to ether become the beaten or those who beat. As such, you won't see this kind of massive social change in places like that without a massive government shift (i.e. revolution).

 

[Denbrought]

Read the Isaac Asimov story The Last Question and think about that question: the issue isn't high rates of reproduction but an ever lengthening lifespan, the removal of most life threatening hazards, and a lack of space (unless you want to start seizing property too). Places get crowded and the entire point of having such a huge god damn population was to have them producing goods for others... when production is automated, you want less people because it's less idle hands to get into trouble. You have to reduce population just to keep order unless you want the proletariat, stuck with a basic income, to start revolting against those they perceive as (unfairly) having more.

Already read it many times, and I +1 the recommendation.

Post-scarcity societies do not have unlimited supplies of innovation (science, art, philosophy, ...), I hardly see the point in enacting involuntary population control before unsustainability can be reasonably foreseen and calculated. You're thinking generations ahead of the level being discussed, no?

As for my concern about cheap/coerced labor elsewhere... the whole point of the guaranteed income is to work as a social control in the face of a world that no longer has labor issues... but some regions (like North Korea) use forced labor as a means of controlling the population. They have no incentive of doing something like this; they want a beaten down population and the ability to force people to ether become the beaten or those who beat. As such, you won't see this kind of massive social change in places like that without a massive government shift (i.e. revolution).

Guaranteed income does not require a global scale, it requires an economy you can tinker with (the whole world is one, but so is every country not at the top-side of the Fragile States Index). Yes, the eventual idea is to raise the standard of living in the entire world, but jumping to North Korea not wanting in is like saying a church isn't worth building because there's an atheist in town.

 

[AshburnerX]

Already read it many times, and I +1 the recommendation.

Post-scarcity societies do not have unlimited supplies of innovation (science, art, philosophy, ...), I hardly see the point in enacting involuntary population control before unsustainability can be reasonably foreseen and calculated. You're thinking generations ahead of the level being discussed, no?

There is nothing wrong with being proactive and considering future issues before they occur.

Guaranteed income does not require a global scale, it requires an economy you can tinker with (the whole world is one, but so is every country not at the top-side of the Fragile States Index). Yes, the eventual idea is to raise the standard of living in the entire world, but jumping to North Korea not wanting in is like saying a church isn't worth building because there's an atheist in town.

It's actually more like a Utopian idea like guaranteed income seems less so when one of your neighbors isn't allowed to partake because of actions outside his own. I'm not saying that you couldn't still do a guaranteed income in places that would allow it, but the point of such a thing is to remove the toils of existence to allow ALL of humanity to flourish in peace. By ignoring the suffering of others, you (and I don't mean you specifically, @Denbrought, but rather all of humanity) are perpetuating the sort of world view that allows such horrors to continue. It's basically invoking The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas: if paradise can exist while others suffer, is it paradise? If we can learn to live with that knowledge, do we deserve it?

Utopia is supposed to be for everyone, not just the ones you can save easily.

 

[Denbrought]

Being proactive and seeing population control as a necessity of post-scarcity are different, in my view.

I don't believe in achieving utopia, only in continuous improvement. I subscribe to a lot of effective altruist writings and ideas--paradise on earth is built one day at a time. Just because you can't call it paradise, it doesn't mean it's not better than yesterday's world.

I do absolutely believe in saving those you can save easily, though. If you can save a human life for $3,000-ish then do it. If you believe that saving human lives is the best possible use of charitable income dedicate your charitable income to the highest marginal lifesaving endeavors. You don't have to start at the expensive end of the list.

I don't understand all-or-nothing in the real world, only in fiction.

 

[Gruebeard]

With everyone on Welfare, the lines are gonna be so long at the liquor store.

 

[strawman]

Being proactive and seeing population control as a necessity of post-scarcity are different, in my view.

This rings true. Sure, talk about it and do analysis, but don't implement plans and programs to remove or reduce rights until it's provably necessary.

In programming and many other disciplines the saying is, "Premature optimization is the root of all evil" indicating that what we think is a problem during design and development may not actually be the problem once everything is implemented, and focusing effort on it not only wastes resources, but may cause problems of its own. Wait until you can measure the problems before spending time fixing them. That doesn't mean there's no point in considering things in advance, but action can often wait until measurement is available.

I don't believe in achieving utopia, only in continuous improvement.

This is certainly true. "The grass is always greener" syndrome is simply part of the human condition. We are living an existence that I expect many of our forbears would consider utopia. As we experience it, though, and know little of the hardships they endured, we can only see the flaws and cracks that we don't like simply because we haven't experienced worse.

A simple trip up Maslow's Hierarchy of needs shows that now matter where we are at, there's always something more we desire. If we have our physiological needs met, as most in the US do, then we crave safety. If those needs are met, and still this is true for most in the US, then we crave belonging, love, friends and intimacy. If we have that, and again, most in the US are able to achieve that, then we seek respect from others, confidence, achievement.

This theoretical post-scarcity utopia can provide the lower levels of needs, and can enable the middle levels, but can't do much for the top level.

Thus, so far as I can tell, no matter what needs are met for "free" by society, people will still struggle with problems. Further, if there are no real problems, people will create conflict where there need be none - mostly in an effort to build their own self importance. I don't think society can create this artificially sufficiently to satisfy human desire - no matter how much one has, one wants more.

 

[GasBandit]

If this is where we're gonna kick around what-ifs and thought experiments, how about this one...

Instead of trying to build up the bottom, what if we set fire to the top.

At the end of the year, all personal liquid/property wealth above a certain level, call it, I don't know, 100 times average personal income (which right now would work out to be 5 million dollars) for individuals and 100 times average corporate profits for companies, is confiscated and destroyed. The government doesn't get it to spend, it isn't redistributed, it's gone. Note I said wealth is destroyed, not income (albeit the cap is based on average income x100). Liquid capital, property, buildings, planes, cars, whatever... if the total owned by a person or company is above the limit, those assets are destroyed, starting with the most expensive working down, until the total is back under the limit.

A closing income gap, but no more incentive to "rob from the rich" via redistribution. It becomes a race to get rid of money above the cap via whatever means necessary - charity, new companies, new hiring, whatever. And as average income goes up - so does the cap.

 

[Gruebeard]

Switzerland would just get all of Trump's gold, Gas.




(Vaguely Godwinning this thread)

 

[GasBandit]

Switzerland would just get all of Trump's gold, Gas.




(Vaguely Godwinning this thread)

Heh, or slightly more realistically, the billionaires would move to monaco, I get it.

 

[Gruebeard]

But let me add that is indeed an interesting idea.

 

[Denbrought]

If this is where we're gonna kick around what-ifs and thought experiments, how about this one...

Instead of trying to build up the bottom, what if we set fire to the top.

At the end of the year, all personal liquid/property wealth above a certain level, call it, I don't know, 100 times average personal income (which right now would work out to be 5 million dollars) for individuals and 100 times average corporate profits for companies, is confiscated and destroyed. The government doesn't get it to spend, it isn't redistributed, it's gone. Note I said wealth is destroyed, not income (albeit the cap is based on average income x100). Liquid capital, property, buildings, planes, cars, whatever... if the total owned by a person or company is above the limit, those assets are destroyed, starting with the most expensive working down, until the total is back under the limit.

A closing income gap, but no more incentive to "rob from the rich" via redistribution. It becomes a race to get rid of money above the cap via whatever means necessary - charity, new companies, new hiring, whatever. And as average income goes up - so does the cap.

Meaningless in a post-scarcity world, and negligently wasteful in a world with limited resources. Confiscating wealth makes the controlling entity morally responsible for that wealth's use (kind of like how we hold the federal government responsible for its spending on military matters). Destroying it instead of, say, saving human lives with it (since the wealth is being destroyed, I think I get to choose a very positive alternative use) creates a very strong disgust response in me.

That being said, this would make for very interesting fiction in any setting where entropy isn't a concern (e.g. a perpetual motion engine exists, we're all dying in X years anyway, set during the industrial revolution era).

 

[GasBandit]

Maybe add in a financial Berlin Wall. Outlaw any wire transfers of money leaving the US, and any physical asset registered in the US (planes, cars etc) are subject to immediate destruction if the registration is attempted to be changed to another nation.

 

[Denbrought]

Maybe add in a financial Berlin Wall. Outlaw any wire transfers of money leaving the US, and any physical asset registered in the US (planes, cars etc) are subject to immediate destruction if the registration is attempted to be changed to another nation.

This is cryptocurrency fanatics' wet dream, innit?

 

[AshburnerX]

It would certain destroy inflation... but you also said personal wealth. All that would happen is the wealthy would dump that money into corporations and only corporations would have the resources to dictate policy. The wealthy would keep their toys by keeping them in the name of the corporation they own/serve, who would in turn lend these toys out as incentives for their boards to remain compliant. It would basically bring back Feudalism.

 

[strawman]

Maybe add in a financial Berlin Wall. Outlaw any wire transfers of money leaving the US, and any physical asset registered in the US (planes, cars etc) are subject to immediate destruction if the registration is attempted to be changed to another nation.

So no more international trade?

There are a million ways to game your system. For instance, I start a new company, once it starts getting more than 5 million a year, it splits in two, and I simply become board of directors with little over 50% stake in each. Of course most of my living expenses, travel, housing, etc are "business purposes" and rented (not owned!) by the businesses for my personal use. Thus I have few assets other than the part ownership in each company, but live like a king. Everything in the business is rented - computers, premises, etc, with few to no assets themselves, etc, etc. I pay the employees enough that the businesses never go above the 5 million mark, and if that can't be stopped I hire more people, rent more stuff, or start another business that also has no real assets.

 

[AshburnerX]

So no more international trade?

There are a million ways to game your system. For instance, I start a new company, once it starts getting more than 5 million a year, it splits in two, and I simply become board of directors with little over 50% stake in each. Of course most of my living expenses, travel, housing, etc are "business purposes" and rented (not owned!) by the businesses for my personal use. Thus I have few assets other than the part ownership in each company, but live like a king. Everything in the business is rented - computers, premises, etc, with few to no assets themselves, etc, etc. I pay the employees enough that the businesses never go above the 5 million mark, and if that can't be stopped I hire more people, rent more stuff, or start another business that also has no real assets.

And it ultimately means nothing when some of these businesses eventually fail because you'll be getting use out of so many that it won't actually matter. You'd be slightly inconvenienced at worst.

Is it AT ALL surprising that corporations are a problem in this imaginary system, when they were designed to abuse their original system?

 

[GasBandit]

So no more international trade?

What, we export?

There are a million ways to game your system. For instance, I start a new company, once it starts getting more than 5 million a year, it splits in two, and I simply become board of directors with little over 50% stake in each. Of course most of my living expenses, travel, housing, etc are "business purposes" and rented (not owned!) by the businesses for my personal use. Thus I have few assets other than the part ownership in each company, but live like a king. Everything in the business is rented - computers, premises, etc, with few to no assets themselves, etc, etc. I pay the employees enough that the businesses never go above the 5 million mark, and if that can't be stopped I hire more people, rent more stuff, or start another business that also has no real assets.

That's another hole that would have to be plugged. Prohibit a single person from serving in any managerial capacity in more than one company. Otherwise they shall be considered the same company for the purposes of the cap. No more conglomerates. 9 companies can't own everything we eat any more.

Though, do note I applied two separate caps to personal and corporate entities, both based on x100 average.

As for other loopholes, we'll obviously need an inquisitorial department. If you are found guilty of gaming the system by the judgement of the inquisitors, you are subject to 100% asset destruction.

 

[strawman]

asset destruction.

So you side with those that favor fire...

 

[AshburnerX]

What, we export?


That's another hole that would have to be plugged. Prohibit a single person from serving in any managerial capacity in more than one company. Otherwise they shall be considered the same company for the purposes of the cap. No more conglomerates. 9 companies can't own everything we eat any more.

Though, do note I applied two separate caps to personal and corporate entities, both based on x100 average.

As for other loopholes, we'll obviously need an inquisitorial department. If you are found guilty of gaming the system by the judgement of the inquisitors, you are subject to 100% asset destruction.

You would have to make it "no more than one corporation per immediate family within 3 generations" just to keep Old White Grandpa from using his wealth and connections to use his kids and grandkids as ways to store his assets. But even then you'd have rich guys essentially dictating the breeding of their lineage to game the system. "Oh no, my 10 year old great granddaughter just had her period and she's SUDDENLY PREGNANT. My 20 year old grandaughter will be distraught when she tells my 30 year old daughter the news. I'll just have to put this corporation in my great, great grandchild's name for the time being I suppose!"

 

[PatrThom]

A closing income gap, but no more incentive to "rob from the rich" via redistribution. It becomes a race to get rid of money above the cap via whatever means necessary - charity, new companies, new hiring, whatever. And as average income goes up - so does the cap.

Perhaps you would fancy a read of "The Midas Plague," a story written back in 1954 by Fredrick Pohl.
https://archive.org/stream/galaxymagazine-1954-04/Galaxy_1954_04#page/n7/mode/2up
It may resonate.

Also you now have an understanding of why I so dislike playing games with people who aren't interested in playing the game, they're interested in playing the game against itself in order to extract the greatest possible personal advantage.

--Patrick

 

[GasBandit]

Perhaps you would fancy a read of "The Midas Plague," a story written back in 1954 by Fredrick Pohl.
https://archive.org/stream/galaxymagazine-1954-04/Galaxy_1954_04#page/n7/mode/2up
It may resonate.

--Patrick

I'll give it a look when I get home.

You would have to make it "no more than one corporation per immediate family within 3 generations" just to keep Old White Grandpa from using his wealth and connections to use his kids and grandkids as ways to store his assets. But even then you'd have rich guys essentially dictating the breeding of their lineage to game the system. "Oh no, my 10 year old great granddaughter just had her period and she's SUDDENLY PREGNANT. My 20 year old grandaughter will be distraught when she tells my 30 year old daughter the news. I'll just have to put this corporation in my great, great grandchild's name for the time being I suppose!"

That's a good point, too. Would have to institute national anti-nepotism laws, and probably also a lower cap on wealth for minors, perhaps scaling exponentially from 0 at birth to 100% of the normal cap at 18.

It might also just be easier to eliminate the corporation as a legal entity and increase the personal cap more. Call it, 200 or perhaps 500x average personal income, but any company's assets are considered to be the personal assets of the owner of the company, and that ownership cannot be split among a board - for cap purposes, it is all calculated as being owned by the otherwise-already-wealthiest person in the company.

 

[PatrThom]

I'm all for the abolishment of Corporate Personhood, but I'm not sure what the best method would be to end the idea of corporate immortality.

--Patrick

 

[drawn_inward]

Well, what we should do is:

1. Use eugenics to eliminate all of those who have an unfair genetic advantage: height, intelligence, strength, constitution, etc.
2. Kill the 1%.
3. Eliminate all privately owned companies, and give power to a multinational committee (e.g. U.N.).
4. Redistribute wealth from steps 1 and 2.
5. Have governmental programs to pay for degrees in Xbox gaming and PS4 studies - eliminate STEM programs.
6. Have a pay to watch system which pays citizens based on hrs of entertainment consumed (internet/t.v./gaming).
7. Create a fastfood subsidy to help the less fortunate.
8. Utopia!!!

 

[Necronic]

Damn man, I wrote this like 2 page response to this and then right before I could submit my message my manager walked in so I quickly minimized it and while we were talking the IT guy came by to fix something on my computer and he closed the browser. Long story short, I am not a fan of universal income. It's unfeasibly expensive and/or doesn't actually provide enough income to help people in true need, and when you start tinkering with it to get it to a point where it works correctly you end up with something a lot like welfare. We are way better off just trying to fix welfare.

 

[GasBandit]

I'm all for the abolishment of Corporate Personhood, but I'm not sure what the best method would be to end the idea of corporate immortality.

--Patrick

Hah, made me think today, if a corporation is a "person," shouldn't it be illegal for a corporation to "own" another corporation?

 

[blotsfan]

Hah, made me think today, if a corporation is a "person," shouldn't it be illegal for a corporation to "own" another corporation?

My God I'd love to see that get used in court.

 

[tegid]

Let me first say that UBI is a very interesting proposal, with its own obvious and not-so-obvious drawbacks, that more people should be thinking about. Interestingly, it can allow for more social voluntary work (that has suddenly become paid) without a central organizer (i.e. government) deciding where that work is needed: the 'market' of perceived needs takes care of part of that. It is also important to consider as a solution to the coming age (if it's not here already) where there will not be enough manual jobs to give 40h jobs to the whole population.

There has been a counterproposal in Spain in recent months: 'Guaranteed Work', in which yes, you get the same minimum wage, but not 'for free'. The government provides a job for you. That has the obvious problems of the government deciding what work is worthy of being done or not and all the problems that come with a central organization. A communist solution using a communist perspective... in a capitalist world. I like UBI because it's a somewhat communist soultion that uses the strengths of capitalism.

Under this method you'd continue to get the payment, and anything you work additionally adds to your basic income. The cost of living for the average student is right about this level, and education is free, so it's not too little to live on, though if you've got children if may be harder since only adults get the payment. The article suggests it would replace all other welfare, but I'm guessing child welfare programs might not go away completely.

In many Universal Basic Income proposals you get an additional % per children in your care, say, 50% of what an adult would get.

One thing I've never seen addressed with such proposals, but should be: what adjustments should be made for housing costs and/or cost of living? For example, Vancouver, BC, is one of the most expensive places to live in the world whereas much of rural Newfoundland is pretty cheap. For a USA example, think Manhattan versus... rural Montana or something. The basic income in both places should NOT be the same, but how would it be determined in a way to stave off politics as much as possible?

Should it not? If minimum income can be the same, UBI can too. I used to think like you, but lately I've been thinking that, well, if some cities are much more expensive to live in, it may simply be because it's better to live there. There's a price to pay if you want to live in the same place as everyone else: you become poorer. Conversely, if you want everything to be cheaper, you can go someplace else to live, but your price will be that the doctor is further away, or you won't get the same internet speed, and you certainly won't have a yoga place and a starbucks at the corner.