3 ms·

You can flip that on its head and ask the same question about an employee who blows all their paycheck in a casino. It's just an utterly pointless what-if. In

You can flip that on its head and ask the same question about an employee who blows all their paycheck in a casino. It's just an utterly pointless what-if. In all seriousness, how many people do you think will actually go and spend it all in a casino? 0.01%? 0.001%? What's the point of asking a question about the 0.001% of people with such a bad gambling habit that they'd immediately spend all their money in a casino. It should be utterly irrelevant to the discussion. It's a different problem. Some people will muck up their lives. UBI won't solve that. Some people will still get hit by a car, some people will still have mental health problems and some people will still get pregnant at 14. UBI won't solve that. Some people will still get hooked on heroin. UBI won't solve that. Some people will get struck by lightning and need emergency treatment. UBI won't solve that. It won't be the only social welfare program needed. There are some people who through accident or poor choices will still need extra help.

avar 11y ago
> It won't be the only social welfare program needed. There are > some people who through accident or poor choices will still need > extra help. Whenever UBI comes up some proponents of it support it largely on the notion that it could actually save money by abolishing the bureaucratic social welfare we have today. Lots of comments here are pointing out something to that effect. Which makes OPs question less absurd, because it goes to 1) How many selective welfare programs should still remain? 2) If #1 is large enough does the "but it can replace existing welfare programs" argument for UBI make sense?
- Al-Khwarizmi 11y ago
  I think the answer to that is quite simple and clear-cut. It can replace all the existing welfare programs that focus on material needs. It cannot replace programs that focus on other problems (for example drug addiction, mental illness, etc.) as those don't go away by throwing money at them. Note, however, than the latter have way less bureaucracy associated. Bureaucracy in welfare is almost always associated with fraud prevention from people who want to game the system to get money that they shouldn't get.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

avar 11y ago

> It won't be the only social welfare program needed. There are > some people who through accident or poor choices will still need > extra help. Whenever UBI comes up some proponents of it support it largely on the notion that it could actually save money by abolishing the bureaucratic social welfare we have today. Lots of comments here are pointing out something to that effect. Which makes OPs question less absurd, because it goes to 1) How many selective welfare programs should still remain? 2) If #1 is large enough does the "but it can replace existing welfare programs" argument for UBI make sense?

Al-Khwarizmi 11y ago
I think the answer to that is quite simple and clear-cut. It can replace all the existing welfare programs that focus on material needs. It cannot replace programs that focus on other problems (for example drug addiction, mental illness, etc.) as those don't go away by throwing money at them. Note, however, than the latter have way less bureaucracy associated. Bureaucracy in welfare is almost always associated with fraud prevention from people who want to game the system to get money that they shouldn't get.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]