> How does it remove anything if the other systems still need to exist? Most of the other systems don't need to exist. Those that do are narrower in scope and

> How does it remove anything if the other systems still need to exist? Most of the other systems don't need to exist. Those that do are narrower in scope and can better serve a much smaller group of people. > By definition alone, the existing systems still need to exist, only without the economies of scale that they have today. Means tested welfare systems have almost no economies of scale. Every case needs an assessor and the more people you deal with the more assessors you need. The alternative is to reduce the quality of the assessment. Even worse, the assessment process is often contracted out. So now the program pays wages to a fleet of assessors and also to shareholders. > By the way, I don't think UBI obviates the need for a "majority" of them. It obviates the need for one welfare payment system. The others still need to exist to serve whoever they are serving now. In the UK, off the top of my head, it would entirely replace: unemployment benefits, housing benefits, child tax benefits, disability benefits, working tax credits, EMA, and childcare payments. The main difference to many of the people who are "served" by the current system is that they'll actually receive the benefits they're entitled to, without having to know how to apply, and roll the dice on a minimally trained assessor with a financial incentive to say no.