4 ms·
If it’s given to everyone then you’re going to be subsidising the wealthy while cutting support for the poor. Supporters want it because they dream of playing x
by MagicMoonlight 3y ago
If it’s given to everyone then you’re going to be subsidising the wealthy while cutting support for the poor. Supporters want it because they dream of playing xbox all day.
If it’s given to everyone then taken away based on income, that’s just a stupider version of the current system. We already give people support based on need, so why would we get rid of that just to circle back? Just make the support better if the poor are struggling.
- bee_rider 3y agoI don’t think it is obvious that it will have to come at the cost of cutting support for the poor. At least, we’d save a bit by not having any administrative costs. It could also de-politicize this sort of support, and avoid embarrassing wastes of money, like the time Florida decided to spend more than they saved by drug testing welfare recipients. Projects that help everyone seem easier to sell politically.
- joshuamorton 3y ago> If it’s given to everyone then you’re going to be subsidising the wealthy while cutting support for the poor. Supporters want it because they dream of playing xbox all day. The usual idea is that you increase (progressive) taxes such that there is some income level at which you net zero, because you are taxed an additional amount equal to the UBI. As the other person said, the key reasoning for UBI is that you avoid a lot of forms of means testing (which prevent eligible people from getting access to the resources) and administrative costs (in terms of reviewing eligibility requirements) which can make things less efficient.