2 ms·
> Arguably, that saves even more money than trying to only give it to people who "need" it. Some people argue this, but never with reference to the actual data
by notahacker 6y ago
> Arguably, that saves even more money than trying to only give it to people who "need" it.
Some people argue this, but never with reference to the actual data, which unambiguously proves them wrong. The UK Department of Work and Pensions' unusually bureaucratic approach to eligibility results in admin spends of a little over £6bn, or around 3% of its total budget. If you could eliminate all those costs you'd be able to pay working age Brits a UBI of around £180 per annum!
- throwaway2245 6y agoYou could double that number to account for the "fraud and error" spend at DWP: I would presume that further spending in this regard is dedicated to other departments.
- notahacker 6y agoSure, or you could halve it since much of it's admin for pensions, and stuff like disability allowance and housing benefit you don't want to eliminate unless you're cool with UBI leaving people immobile or homeless, and you can't do payments to 36m working age people with no admin. Either way, it's still an order of magnitude or two less than UBI costs. Sure, you can fire a few low paid Jobcentre employees if you're convinced retaining that sort of admin offers no actual benefit to anyone attending, but it turns out that paying 8 million people who are neither in employment nor willing/able to ask for appointments at Jobcentres a livable income isn't cheaper