4 ms·

I always saw the "also giving it to the rich" as much more about avoiding the bureaucratic overhead, social stigma and other associated downsides of trying to e

• dorgo 6y ago
  And the rich are so few that you wouldn't save much by exlucding them.
  • Taek 6y ago
    That's the thing. Not very expensive to also give money to the rich, and also there are extenuating circumstances. I know multiple people who had no jobs and no savings yet didn't qualify for covid checks from the US because they had high paying jobs in 2018. If you just pay everyone, wealth still disproportionately moves towards the poor.
• ramblerman 6y ago
  This, and also the removal of welfare. Since you lose welfare when you get a job often there is an opportunity cost decision, should I really work 40 hours a week to make a little more than welfare. with UBI the salary is always additional.
  • blaser-waffle 6y ago
    Aye to take it a step further: there is a professor at UCSD who pushes for UBI Libertarianism, for that reason. Don't add conditions or requirements, just mail everyone a check and ditch all of the bureaucracy, EBT, etc. The problem is that it makes poverty traps smaller, but doesn't make them go away. Like, if Johnny Hobo isn't able to feed his kids and blows his welfare on smokes and 40s, UBI isn't going to magically make him a better father or better at spending his money, he's just going to buy better booze.
    • ric2b 6y ago
      That's a separate problem, his kids should be taken away if he's endangering them.