15 ms·
> the bureaucracy and the more efficient capital allocation, is completely eclipsed by the massive waste of paying UBI to everyone who doesn't need welfare I
by maerF0x0 4y ago
> the bureaucracy and the more efficient capital allocation, is completely eclipsed by the massive waste of paying UBI to everyone who doesn't need welfare
I understand your idea. The crux here being neither of us are providing data, just rhetoric.
- settrans 4y agoI'm not sure I understand. I'm using simple arithmetic to show that UBI can't replace welfare except at unfathomable expense, based on real welfare expense and GDP numbers. Do you disagree?
- maerF0x0 4y agoyou dont present enough concrete values for the parameters to prove the point. eg: What is the % improved (degraded) capital allocation? What is the ratio of bureaucracy spend to money handed out? What proportion of the nation is on welfare and what is the true amount of literal need (remember some people will be over paid on welfare too). Also technically this is a Negative Income tax not UBI so it could actually be a sort of means tested against income. as pure example to illustrate the concept Imagine >10k had a negative tax rate, everyone with income > 10k would receive money back, whereas presumably people some threshold above 10k would still net pay taxes on their total income tax return. ultimately i'm not saying you're wrong, or that I'm right. But that neither of us has enough data to make a claim of fact beyond rhetoric.