2 ms·
People are saying it's a benefit, nobody (maybe with the exception of an occasional misinformed internet commenter, but I don't think I've even seen that) is cl
by swores 4y ago
People are saying it's a benefit, nobody (maybe with the exception of an occasional misinformed internet commenter, but I don't think I've even seen that) is claiming the saving in reduced admin costs would fully fund UBI. And the fact it wouldn't fully fund it doesn't take away from the fact that saving billions and billions of wasted money wouldn't be a big side-benefit that helps reduce the cost.
UBI would be funded by increased taxation on the wealthiest, but the fact that the majority of current welfare admin costs would be saved reduces the amount of tax-based funding meaning that more benefit comes out of each dollar taxed.
- denton-scratch 4y agoI don't know how you fund UBI; I'm not an economist. But I know it can be done, because I know the government has funded some astonishlingly costly projects. The thing about UBI is that it takes away financial terror from everyone; whatever happens, you won't have to beg on the pavement. Socialized health assures you that you won't be forced to sell your family's home if you get ill. It's hard to measure the value of these social goods, so they don't get measured. But they are undeniably goods.