3 ms·
Is there a reason why all of that should be eliminated besides that you think they're "mal-incentives?"
by rhizome 9y ago
Is there a reason why all of that should be eliminated besides that you think they're "mal-incentives?"
- danielhooper 9y agoIt's simpler (cheaper)
- rhizome 9y agoWell in that case, simpler and cheaper can be achieved through the reduction of military expenditures and increases in marginal tax rates for high earners.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y agoIf it's cheaper, doesn't that necessarily mean that people on welfare will be receiving less benefit? Actually much less since UBI will go to everyone, if it's cheaper in spite of that...
- fzzzy 9y agoThe overhead of administering the program is cheaper.
- lend000 9y agoSee my other response -- negative incentives, bureaucratic cruft, etc. Similar to why you might prefer a 10 line program that is O(n) to a 4000 line program which is O(nlogn) -- seems obvious to me. There could certainly be exceptions for some programs (like Food stamps for children who don't yet qualify for UBI) or for things that are not bought with cash in a marketplace (if we ever had state health providers, for example), but for the most part, this comparison could eliminate dozens of government agencies and programs while expanding benefits.