>The point I made was that people will not vote for welfare unless it's means tested. It's really that simple. I would agree with your point about the voters.

>The point I made was that people will not vote for welfare unless it's means tested. It's really that simple. I would agree with your point about the voters. But that just means the electorate are too stupid to realize that it is more efficient and cheaper to NOT means test. Those who administer the means test are unionized, pensioned employees who cost the taxpayer a lot of money. The argument for UBI is that it is cheaper because you don't need all those bureaucrats/administrators who work in social services gatekeeping. An argument against UBI, to me, is that the landlords will just raise their rents accordingly and scoop up the money. I believe that's what happened when the govt starting giving out money for low income earners to help them with their rent. I might be wrong on that. A pragmatic question is: will it help more people than it harms?