3 ms·
This is a solved problem (at least, it's solved about as well as you could expect we could do). Social Security has the notion of a REPY or "Representative Paye
by galdosdi 10y ago
This is a solved problem (at least, it's solved about as well as you could expect we could do). Social Security has the notion of a REPY or "Representative Payee" for recipients deemed unable to spend their own money, a trustee who manages it on their behalf. It's similar to (but not the same as) the concept of a legal guardian.
All in all, the Social Security Administration has a huge amount of experience with all the details and problems involved in efficient day to day administration of a massive payments program like this, so there's no reason not to just reuse the existing bureaucratic infrastructure and just swap out the eligibility rules.
- greedo 10y agoAnd if you retain the SSA, one of the biggest arguments for UBI (dismantling wasteful government agencies) gets defenestrated.
- ars 10y agoI would expect the SSA to be the ones administering the UBI plan.
- galdosdi 10y agoActually, SSA is very efficient. SSA spends just a fraction of a percentage point of the benefits it distributes on administrative costs (ie, the existence and operation of SSA itself). But even the vast majority of that is for the means-tested SSI Title 16 program, not the simpler Title 2 SS programs. Since a UBI is much simpler than either of those, SSA could easily save even more -- there would certainly be plenty of consolidation and maybe downsizing possible after passage of UBI. But there's no reason to throw away the common infrastructure for payments that already exists.