Ok this is a lot to go through so let me take it step by step. In regards to whether or not it works in the US, or other countries that is something i didnt ca

Ok this is a lot to go through so let me take it step by step. In regards to whether or not it works in the US, or other countries that is something i didnt calculate and quite frankly don't really care about. My goal when checking the data was simply to see if it was both feasible and beneficial in my own country (portugal), so I didn't bother to check the data for other countries. That being said the primary reason why it is so readily and clearly a better system than the existent is that there is a very large discrepancy between the high income and low and medium income in terms of how many cash benefits they get. For reference, in Portugal around 46% of all cash benefits expenses go to the 20% of the population with the highest income, the next quintile (the 20% poorest) receives only 18%. This, if I recall correctly, is not the case in the US, there the distribution is not so eschewed and so the social benefits to simply changing the distribution is not nearly as convincing. Now in regards to special cases that you mentioned, then indeed, there will definitely be some amount of people who will be harmed by the change, however we do have universal healthcare and it is quite good, so those people will always be a small minority. There is definitely something to research there, and we should definitely quantify just how many people will be affected, however we cannot justify harming 80% of the population just because we might harm a handful of outliers, that is in my view socially irresponsible. As for the motivation issue you mentioned, the fact of the matter is that the existing system already has those same issues, the only difference is a matter of intensity, which can be measured and the tax rates and expenditures adjusted accordingly. In regards to the matters of inflation, I don't see how any meaningful inflation can occur, for the simple fact that all my calculations assumed the exact same amount of spending as it currently exists. Yes, some specific parts of the economy (particularly in low cost housing/food) might see some inflation, due to the fact that people now have a roof over their head/food to eat, but the amount of homeless in portugal as is, is quite low, and there is no famine, so I cannot imagine that there will be significant changes in total consumption. As for motivation, it seems to me that not having a welfare cliff would go a long way to reducing unemployment (around 8% today, and around 16% at around the time I researched )