3 ms·
> 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. Whenev
by 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 agoI 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]