UBI Shells Frontlines Case Neg Masterfile (1).docx - Shells...

  • No School
  • NONE Accounting
  • Homework Help
  • SargentSnake5896
  • 264

This preview shows page 1 out of 264 pages.

Unformatted text preview: Shells Theory UBI T Shell The UBI has to meet several standards Straubhaar 17 (Thomas, Professor at the University of Hamburg, “On the Economics of a Universal Basic Income,” March/April 2017, pp. 74-80, . eu/year/2017/2/on-the-economics-of-a-universal-basic-income/) Universal basic income (UBI) is gaining momentum worldwide. Switzerland held a ref-erendum on the introduction of a nationwide UBI (which it rejected) in 2016,1 Finland is currently testing it for some people, and India is considering replacing its welfare state with a UBI.2 The UBI is an unconditional cash payment that flows monthly from the state budget to everybody. It is transferred from public to private accounts throughout an entire lifetime, from birth to death, without any application or preconditions to be fulfilled by the beneficiary. It is supposed to cover the socio-cultural subsistence minimum. However, the determination of this minimum level of subsistence is a political and not an economic decision. A basic income is NOT means tested, nor is it considered a tax credit Guy Standing, August 2017, Professorial Research Associate at SOAS University of London and a founder member and honorary co-president of the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), Basic Income: A Guide for the Open-Minded, p. location 149 A stable and predictable basic income , paid come rain come shine , is thus different from a minimum income guarantee , which tops up low incomes to a given level , usually requiring complex means tests . And it is different from a negative income tax or tax credits , which are withdrawn as income rises . (What Is Basic Income?” BIEN, basicincome.org/basic-income/) Basicincome.org defines basic income as “a periodic cash payment uncon-ditionally delivered to all on an individual basis, without means-test or work requirement” and the characteristic of universal is defined as “paid to all, without means test” Cannot Replace T Shell This should be more of an extra t shell about how you are not allowed to specify funding source. Must Replace T Shell Not sure why this is unique from the spec shell? Spec Generic (1:30) Our interp is that the affirmative must specify funding source, distribution, and monetary amount of their UBI scheme in the 1AC. Violation – they don’t. Standards – 1] Ground – no specification makes it impossible to engage in the economics debate – that’s the core of the topic lit. It’s impossible for the negative to read arguments relating to inflation, spending, or 1AC methodology if I don’t know the extent to which the aff can link to it. Tradeoff disads related to funding and politics disads on spending are key negative ground that’s only accessible if you tell me what the aff is. The impact is that the aff becomes a moving target – 1AR clarification makes the 1NC useless if you grant them no links or defense. Internal link on fairness since if I can’t generate a good strategy against the 1AC it’s an unequal access to the ballot. Internal link on education since it removes the core of the topic lit such as econ and methodology. 2] Real world education – no specification means we never debate the details of the plan. Destroys real world education since we could never design a UBI scheme which is fiscally and politically feasible under the aff’s interp. Richard McGahey 01 Universal Basic Income and the Welfare State Working Paper—SSRN# 2863954 October 31, 2016 using the single term “universal basic income” masks several important differences not only in specific proposals, but also in their underlying logics and rationales. This essay describes the range of ideas included under the concept, highlights the economics associated with different versions of the idea, discusses the social welfare policy issues associated with a UBI (with special reference to the United States), and ends by outlining an agenda for future economic research into how UBIs would function in relation to existing welfare state policies. In fact, Destroys critical debate since no specification masks underlying assumption rationales that are revealed through specification. Real world education is generated through clash – supercharges the impact off ground since bad 1NC strategy makes for terrible clash. Outweighs on applicability since only by contextualizing critical politics can we implement them in the real world. Voters on fairness and education since any decision you render as a result of unfairness is a wrong ballot and education is the ultimate goal of debate. Drop the debater – the shell indicts the entirety of the 1AC which means drop the debater is the same as drop the argument. Drop the argument lets them jump ship to a new layer which kills 2NR strategy. Competing interpretations over reasonability since 1] reasonability invites arbitrary judge intervention 2] brightlines are drawn in the 1ar which gives them 2ar spec while I only get the 2nr. Counterplans ENDA CP Counterplan text: The United States federal government should enact the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. ENDA would prevent employers from discriminating based on sexual orientation or gender identity – it’s the first step in ending discrimination HRC, international nonprofit human rights organization, 2015 (Human Rights Campaign, “Employment Non-Discrimination Act” March 9 2015, , MMV) Qualified, hardworking Americans are denied job opportunities, fired or otherwise discriminated against just because they are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). There is no federal law that consistently protects LGBT individuals from employment discrimination; there are no state laws in 29 states that explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, and in 32 states that do so based on gender identity. As a result, LGBT people face serious discrimination in employment, including being fired, being denied a promotion and experiencing harassment on the job. ¶ What is the Employment Non-Discrimination Act?¶ The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) would provide basic protections against workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. ENDA simply affords to all Americans basic employment protection from discrimination based on irrational prejudice. The bill is closely modeled on existing civil rights laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The bill explicitly prohibits preferential treatment and quotas and does not permit disparate impact suits. In addition, it exempts small businesses, religious organizations and the military. ENDA avoids the link to politics – massive public and congressional support HRC, international nonprofit human rights organization, 2015 (Human Rights Campaign, “Employment Non-Discrimination Act” March 9 2015, , MMV) Supermajorities of Republicans and Democrats back ENDA. More than 2/3 of voters - including a strong majority of Republicans - support a federal law protecting LGBT people from discrimination in the workplace, according to a September 2013 poll by Republican pollster Alex Lundry. Majorities in each of the 50 states, according to statistical modeling, are on board. CP: Expand the Target Shell CP Text Blah blah expand to everyone not in the top 20 percent???? Expanding the means test to everyone but the very wealthy solves their stigmatization arguments Gilbert, 02 – Professor of Social Welfare and Social Services at Berkeley (Neil, “Transformation of the Welfare State: The silent Surrender of Public Responsibility,” Oxford University Press, p 142-3.) One must also take into account the level of income used to establish eligibility for social benefits. When the income threshold is set relatively high, a means test may be perceived as a method of allocation that denies eligibility to the very wealthy. When the threshold is set very low, the means test is seen as a device to benefit those in poverty. The premise that such tests create a stigma may reflect more the characteristics of the groups to whom this criterion of eligibility is often applied than the consequences of its application. That is, many poor people may feel stigmatized even before they make an application for benefits if, as some sociologists suggest, being poor is itself considered disreputable or embarrassing,11 To the extent that people judge their self-worth according to their position on the scale of personal income, means tests that concentrate on the poor are serving a group that arrives from the start with some feelings of mortification. A combination of broad policy aimed at the entire social sector and narrow targeting of subsidies to specific groups solves best. Van de Walle, 98 – senior Economist in the Development Research Group (Dominique, “Targeting Revisited” World Bank Res Obs.1998; 13: 231-248, Oxford Journal) Public spending programs aimed at alleviating poverty can either be broadly targeted at categories of spending or narrowly targeted at types of people. Each approach has benefits and costs to the poor. It is often claimed that narrow targeting of the poor will allow governments to reduce poverty more effectively and at lower cost. But narrow targeting often has hidden costs, and once these costs are considered, the most finely targeted policy may not have any more effect on poverty than a broadly targeted one. Both approaches also have hidden benefits, although less is known about their impact. Reducing poverty calls for broadly targeted social sector spending combined with narrower targeting of cash and in-kind transfers to specific groups. It is also important for governments to experiment with schemes that offer better incentives, to carefully monitor the costs and outcomes, and to be flexible and pragmatic in their policy responses. Targeting can help, but it is not a cure-all. The counterplan more accurately reflects their evidence – truly universal programs don’t exist Gilbert, 02 – Professor of Social Welfare and Social Services at Berkeley (Neil, “Transformation of the Welfare State: The silent Surrender of Public Responsibility,” Oxford University Press, p 142-3.) The increasing drift toward means-tested social welfare policies, both directly at the point of distribution or indirectly at the point of consumption, is symptomatic of a the universal versus means-test alternatives represent something akin to the outer rim and the bullseye—most of the targeting policy is going on in between. The bona fide universal schemes at the outer rim have always constituted a very thin band of policies. "Truly universal programmes," as broader retreat from the ideal of universalism in the advanced industrialized world. Among the proliferation of policies designed to target social welfare benefits, are in fact very rare. Even large welfare states commonly have a large number of income-tested benefits, such as social assistance, housing support and family support for child care."29 There are a few exceptions, such as the British Stein Ringen tells it, " National Health Service, which covers everybody and allows even people who may be healthy, but think they are sick, to visit doctors Means tested programs have succeeded – expanding social security, affordable child care and raising the minim wage would cut poverty much more than a UBI and be politically feasible Greenstein 17, Robert, ”Commentary: Universal Basic Income May Sound At-tractive But, If It Occurred, Would Likelier Increase Poverty Than Reduce It,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, ; priority=true&action=click& contentCollection=meter-links-click, September 18, 2017. Some UBI supporters stress that it would be universal. One often hears that means-tested programs eventually get crushed politically while universal programs do well. But the evidence doesn’t support that belief. While cash aid for poor people who aren’t working has fared poorly politically, means-tested programs as a whole have done well. Recent decades have witnessed large expansions of SNAP, Medicaid, the EITC, and other programs. If anything, means-tested programs have fared somewhat better than universal programs in the last several decades. Since 1980, policymakers in Washington and in a number of states have cut unemployment insurance, contributing to a substan-tial decline in the share of jobless Americans — now below 30 percent — who receive unemployment benefits. In addition, the 1983 Social Security deal raised the program’s retirement age from 65 to 67, ultimately generating a 14 percent benefit cut for all bene-ficiaries, regardless of the age at which someone begins drawing benefits. Meanwhile, means-tested benefits overall have substantially expanded despite periodic attacks from the right. The most recent expansion occurred in December of 2105 when policymak-ers made permanent significant expansions of the EITC and the low-income part of the Child Tax Credit that were due to expire after 2017. In recent decades, conservatives generally have been more willing to accept expansions of means-tested programs than universal ones, largely due to the substantially lower costs they carry (which means they put less pressure on total government spending and taxes). The record of recent decades thus points to an alternative course — pushing for steady incremental gains through available mechanisms, including means-tested programs, to provide as much of a floor as possible for Americans of lesser means. In 1967, the safety net lifted out of poverty only 4 percent of Americans who would otherwise be poor. Today, it lifts 42 percent of such people out of poverty, with programs like SNAP and the EITC playing crucial roles alongside Social Security. A multi-pronged strategy — working to start phasing in the Child Tax Credit with the first dollar of a parent’s earnings, substan-tially raising the minimum wage, extending affordable child care and rental assistance to many more families, enlarging SNAP benefits (as a Hamilton Project paper proposes), and strengthening Social Security benefits for low-income workers — would substan-tially strengthen the income floors. It would do so in ways that are far likelier than UBI to succeed politically and much less fraught with danger to the very people we most want to help. CP: EITC Shell I advocate the expansion of the Earn Income Tax Credit program to be supplied periodically to individuals and families in a way to assure poverty remediate as advocated by the affirmative. Education and advertising will be used to assure full enrollment. First, EITC solves poverty and encourages employment. CBPP 14: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “Basics: The Earned Income Tax Credit.” 1-31-2014. . The EITC is designed to encourage and reward work. As noted, a worker’s EITC grows with each additional dollar of earnings until reaching the maximum value. This creates an incentive for people to leave welfare for work and for low-wage workers to increase their work hours. This incentive feature has made the EITC highly successful. Studies show that the EITC encourages large numbers of single parents to leave welfare for work, especially when the labor market is strong. Specifically, a highly regarded study found that EITC expansions are the most important reason why employment rose among single mothers with children during the 1990s — the EITC was more effective in encouraging work than either welfare reform or the strong economy. The Committee for Economic Development, an organization of 250 corporate executives and “The EITC has become a powerful force in dramatically raising the employment of low-income women in recent years.” In 2012, the EITC lifted about 6.5 million people out of poverty, including about 3.3 million children. The number of poor children would have been one-quarter higher without the EITC. In combination with the Child Tax Credit, the EITC lifts even larger numbers of families with children above poverty (see figure). The EITC reduces poverty directly by supplementing the earnings of low-wage workers. There has university presidents, concluded in 2000 that been broad bipartisan agreement that a two-parent family with two children with a full-time, minimum-wage worker should not have to raise its children in poverty. At the federal minimum wage’s current level, such a family can move above the poverty line only if it receives the EITC as well as SNAP (food stamp) benefits. Moving out of poverty is particularly important for young children. Research has found that lifting low-income families’ income when a child is young not only tends to improve a child’s immediate well-being, but is associated with better health, more schooling, more hours worked, and higher earnings in adulthood. A bourgeoning literature links EITC receipt to improved school performance, suggesting that the social cost of the EITC is substantially less than the immediate direct budget cost. This evidence uses studies of EITC in the United States to reveal that a smaller version of the CP lifted 6.5 million out of poverty. The affirmative has zero empirical evidence within the US to support their solvency claim. This means you will always default to the CP on any solvency deficit issues. Because UBI discourage work it actually decreases autonomy and increases marginalization forces Kilhof 2014 Sandra (“Why unconditional basic income is no more than a socialist fairytale”, The New Economy, ) Now, while the economic feasibility of basic income already provides significant fodder for debate, there are also arguments related to the social contract that UBI implies. In order for basic income to work, people must live up to the social contract that implies they earn the basic income through work, but two Danish academics studying the implementation of basic income in Denmark have found such contracts may not be fulfilled. “One of the prominent standard arguments in the Danish debate against basic income is that it is simply morally wrong to allow able-bodied people to live on public transfers without doing anything in return,” explain Erik Christensen and Jørn Loftager in their report Ups and Downs of Basic Income in Denmark. Christensen and Loftager also argue basic income could work to keep individuals away from the labour market. “The worry is that basic income would contribute to existing marginalisation forces within society, and create a dependency upon the state that could detract from the individual autonomy of people receiving the money,” they said. An unconditional basic income discourages career progression and innovation, could potentially have detrimental economic effects and relies on a non-binding social contract. This leaves many questions unanswered on the possible effects of UBI, suggesting a basic income is not so much a solution to all our problems, but a utopian nightmare we’d do best to wake up from soon. Without position in our system marginalized individuals will still be stigmatized by not being fulling within society. This is a comparative reason why the counterplan is superior to the affirmative. Finally, EITC provides funding for the poor without being politically controversial Stern 2016 Andy , , Raising the Floor: How a Universal Basic Income Can Renew Our Economy and Rebuild the American Dream, Andrew L. "Andy" Ster is the former president of the then 2.2.million member Service Employees International Union (SEIU). He is now President Emeritus of SEIU, which grew by more than 1.2 million workers during his tenurep. Location 2892 the EITC can lift the floor for low - to moderate - income workers and their families . The EITC has avoided much of the derision and partisan bickering that other social safety net policies suffer from and provides approximately $ 60 billion to the 24 million working poor , largely financed by taxes on wealthier Americans . If the EITC did not exist , theoretically people would be less willing to take low - wage jobs . When paired with raises to the minimum wage , , a re...
View Full Document

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture