3 ms·

>But the only way we are going to afford a UBI-like program is to remove all the bureaucracy currently wasted to administer these programs. The overhead compar

• throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  UBI style "got a pulse get a check" programs sure. Current means tested programs are full of waste.
  • ChrisLomont 5y ago
    The biggest means tested program, SSA, has less than 1% overhead [1]. Care to cite one with waste by providing the budget numbers? Care to show any of the UBI "experiments" had less overhead than this? I cannot find any, and I checked a few. In fact, here [2] is a peer reviewed article demonstrating that the efficiency UBI proponents imagine is a myth in practice. [1] https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/admin.html https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/admin.html [2] https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.835.2632&rep=rep1&type=pdf https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.83...
• vineyardmike 5y ago
  Citation?
  • ChrisLomont 5y ago
    It's easy to check - pick the biggest program, Social Security. Look at Social Security outlay, say for 2019 (pick any year) [1] and you get $1,091,345M, number of people getting benefits (71,322,000), and operating budget (13,083M). This means expenses to provide 1.091 trillion in assistance is 0.013 trillion, so the overhead is around 1%. In fact, they do all this for you, finding administration costs well under 1% [2] when all benefits and costs are accounted for. Pick any program you want, do the same. Medicare, SNAP, TANF, SNAP... go ahead and show me the excessive overhead to manage these programs. Have a citation to the contrary? [1] https://www.ssa.gov/budget/ https://www.ssa.gov/budget/ [2] https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/admin.html https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/admin.html