Honestly saying a UBI is superior to anything else is so open to interpretation that it’s just asking for it to die by being gummed up in endless debate (which

Honestly saying a UBI is superior to anything else is so open to interpretation that it’s just asking for it to die by being gummed up in endless debate (which is where it’s been languishing so far). Make a case that with all things considered (including government labour and other bureaucracy costs) that a UBI is fundamentally better value overall than the current system and you’d have it in two years. I think that’s a case that could be made convincingly. UBI is simple. It’s impact is therefore easily measurable. It’s self-regulating if you believe that the taxpayer will be incredibly sensitive to systemic abuse because they know they’re fundamentally paying a fixed amount directly. If abuse were becoming a problem, the public would express their distaste at the polls. It also frees up a lot of people to pursue ideas they might otherwise be prevented from exploring, which could have outsized macroeconomic benefits.