3 ms·

I think one of the strongest practical arguments in favor of UBI is that the beurocracy needed to decide who deserves to receive welfare is so cumbersome and in

I think one of the strongest practical arguments in favor of UBI is that the beurocracy needed to decide who deserves to receive welfare is so cumbersome and inneficient that it's more cost effective to not have any restrictions at all. There is a whole subsystem of the courts dedicated purely to dealing with these conflicts. Resolutions are generally very slow and there's tons of overhead s because you have to pay lawyers. Just give every adult citizen a flat amount and you open up the possibility of reducing the size of government in the process of fighting income inequality. This seems like a compromise that could be feasible in the US, but UBI would have to be robust first. This is sort of along the same lines of the observation that just providing housing to homeless people is cheaper than incarcerating them, and provides better outcomes. Of course there is something about this that people instinctively don't like, and in practice the general population has shown it would rather spend more money to accomplish less in order to prevent someone else from getting something for free.

slightwinder 6y ago
Indeed, it's a valid argument for those who are proper adults and can handle their live. But it's an invalid argument for those who need support even on that level if living. Bureaucracy is more often build to give those support who need it, even if they don't think so, as they have different goals than society. It's major problem and basically unsolvable. > This is sort of along the same lines of the observation that just providing housing to homeless people is cheaper than incarcerating them, and provides better outcomes. Does it? > Of course there is something about this that people instinctively don't like It's not just instinct, it's often also experience and understanding things on a greater scale. At least in germany it seems many who work in social services and hotspots are against UBI simply because they see how bad certain people can't handle their live even with all that help given.
- yummypaint 6y ago
  If someone is having so much trouble that giving them money or monetary equivalents won't help, then the traditional american welfare apparatus won't be of much help either. It then becomes a question of what kind of living assistance those people need. If they receive nothing, then they end up in prison where we have to pay for them anyway. Most of these people aren't dangerous at all, but don't have anyone to help them, and can't afford mental health treatment. There is alot of overlap here with other endemic problems like our broken healthcare system. The cost of incarceration in the us is over $30k/person/year, not including exorbitant and exploitative fees levied against inmates and their families for basic communication etc. Just providing housing and staff is much cheaper. The prison system in the US has also become a giant warehouse for these same mentally ill people, whose problems are generally exacerbated by an environment that isn't designed to help them.

slightwinder 6y ago

Indeed, it's a valid argument for those who are proper adults and can handle their live. But it's an invalid argument for those who need support even on that level if living. Bureaucracy is more often build to give those support who need it, even if they don't think so, as they have different goals than society. It's major problem and basically unsolvable. > This is sort of along the same lines of the observation that just providing housing to homeless people is cheaper than incarcerating them, and provides better outcomes. Does it? > Of course there is something about this that people instinctively don't like It's not just instinct, it's often also experience and understanding things on a greater scale. At least in germany it seems many who work in social services and hotspots are against UBI simply because they see how bad certain people can't handle their live even with all that help given.

yummypaint 6y ago
If someone is having so much trouble that giving them money or monetary equivalents won't help, then the traditional american welfare apparatus won't be of much help either. It then becomes a question of what kind of living assistance those people need. If they receive nothing, then they end up in prison where we have to pay for them anyway. Most of these people aren't dangerous at all, but don't have anyone to help them, and can't afford mental health treatment. There is alot of overlap here with other endemic problems like our broken healthcare system. The cost of incarceration in the us is over $30k/person/year, not including exorbitant and exploitative fees levied against inmates and their families for basic communication etc. Just providing housing and staff is much cheaper. The prison system in the US has also become a giant warehouse for these same mentally ill people, whose problems are generally exacerbated by an environment that isn't designed to help them.