3 ms·
I think most proponents would say it replaces existing forms of welfare, some pitch it as being cheaper since one can remove a lot of overhead by having everyon
by jamil7 4y ago
I think most proponents would say it replaces existing forms of welfare, some pitch it as being cheaper since one can remove a lot of overhead by having everyone be eligible.
- NovemberWhiskey 4y agoBut most working-age people in the top four quintiles of income don't get any forms of welfare spending, which is directed almost entirely to the poor or the elderly; and overheads are actually a pretty tiny fraction of the social spending in the U.S. (e.g. Social Security has only something like 0.6% administrative overhead). So unless you propose to reduce funding for the poor or elderly, where exactly does this get funded from?
- jonhohle 4y agoAs myself and others have pointed out, at $1k/month, UBI would have liabilities of $3T/year. Is that in place of SS, Welfare, and Healthcare? That’s what would be required to offset that amount. Or to invert it given the currents system: every man, woman, and child is currently taxed $1k/month to fund existing social service liabilities that are concentrated to a fraction of the population. How do you expand that benefit _and_ include all people as recipients without generating new revenue (e.g. raising taxes).