3 ms·

Thanks for the reply: 1. This is an implementation problem. Hardly inherent to the idea. 2. Sure there are administrative costs. There also costs to giving ev

• darawk 8y ago
  > 1. This is an implementation problem. Hardly inherent to the idea. I wouldn't call it an implementation problem per se. How would you fix this with regards to current welfare, without implementing a UBI-equivalent, for instance? > 2. Sure there are administrative costs. There also costs to giving everyone X amount of money, especially when a large percentage of them don't need it to begin with. This is a bit of an empirical question, of course. But I think the argument would be that money spent on administrative costs is pure waste, but money distributed to citizens is not. > 3. Indeed there is fairness. However since everyone receives it everyone's relative position is unchanged. So the question is, if giving everyone money somehow helps everyone, why not give everyone more? To what point does this end? Indeed their relative positions are unchanged, but the distribution is squished. Giving a poor person $1000 might increase their wealth 100%. Giving $100 to a rich person might only increase it 0.001%.