3 ms·
> UBI would, and should, replace current welfare schemes. We already have those in place. But that would still require a huge amount of additional money if you
by qwytw 3y ago
> UBI would, and should, replace current welfare schemes. We already have those in place.
But that would still require a huge amount of additional money if you want UBI to be above subsistence levels.
Otherwise the amount received by current welfare recipients would have to be cut several times. Also what about disabled people and others who can't work? Would they get the same amount as everyone?
- gchamonlive 3y agoI don't really understand the subject too deeply, just enough to have me convinced UBI should be implemented in some form, but I think the fundamental assumption is that everything that the government has to provide, it is going to do so, by no fault of the government itself, in a very inefficient way. So by the mere act of UBI replacing many systems and centralising in a single program many forms of wealth redistribution, it would do so with less waste, even if UBI would be by itself inefficient.
- michaelmrose 3y agoIt is incredibly easy to automate giving every citizen an unconditional electronic deposit. The inefficiency and overhead of social programs comes from individual assessments to figure out who to exclude.
- gchamonlive 3y agoI am not sure if I agree. Govmnt has to deal with much more than mere function of their programs. It must have approval, integrate with other social databases, be somewhat resilient against fraud. Not to mention this assumes everybody can be reached by electronic deposits which isn't a given.
- michaelmrose 3y agoThis is pretty much a reasonably solved problem. You issue a bank card to anyone who doesn't have a bank and deposit the funds and resolve issues of identity by physically showing up an an office. Post offices are pervasively available and usually very close to where most people live. For fraud issue you have the bank or banks running the program handle fraud per normal procedures and the government steps in to prosecute people who abuse the system as they do in present situations. The program loses no more than a normal bank to fraud and covers losses from fraud by investing deposits in safe securities.
- qwytw 3y agoIdentity fraud is a solved problem (in most developed countries anyway) a bigger issue is false claims and general inefficiency of government welfare programs. You can just give everyone an equal amount of cash instead but then disabled and other people who are unable to work would starve to death unless there is massive increase in taxes/redistribution.
- qwytw 3y ago> it is going to do so, by no fault of the government itself, in a very inefficient way Whose fault is it then? I mean if we agree that some governments/organizations are more efficient than others who else could we blame? >UBI replacing many systems For instance the British government spends about £2500 per capita on welfare. Even if admin etc. would cost nothing £200 per month is not exactly an amount which would allow you to not work, meaning people who can't actually work would starve/freeze/etc. to death without any additional support from the government or somebody else.
- gchamonlive 3y agoIt is nobody's fault, it is intrinsically difficult to organize a large group of humans. Some countries deal with it better, many examples come to mind from Europe, but they have many advantages and still are far from being efficient in general. Look I am not a political philosopher, not even close. But I can refer you to Robert Nozick's the Minimal Estate. I am not sure I agree with everything he says there, but I think he describes interesting points regarding govnmt efficiency.