4 ms·
> 1. Financing it. These programs are monumentally expensive. You need to get the money from somewhere. Depends on the level it's set at, but as it's "Basic" i
by DonaldFisk 3y ago
> 1. Financing it. These programs are monumentally expensive. You need to get the money from somewhere.
Depends on the level it's set at, but as it's "Basic" it would just cover basic needs. It would replace unemployment benefit, the non-contributory portion of old age pensions, child benefit, and maybe a few other things. It would also simplify bureaucracy - no need to assess people's circumstances. There have been pilot programmes which showed other benefits, e.g. the Dauphin experiment resulted in improvements in people's health, and a recent experiment in Kenya resulted in people setting up businesses, boosting the local economy. Yes, rich people would get it too, but that would be paid for through increases in higher rates of income tax.
- giantg2 3y agoBasic needs are costly, and the programs you mention do not completely cover basic needs. For things like social security, people spend something like half a lifetime paying into it inorder to recieve relatively small payments for a short portion of their life. Child benefits and unemployment are also short duration. I have no doubt that eliminating programs and bureaucracy will lead to better efficiency. However, I'm not convinced it will be cheaper. I also question the efficacy if the money is less targeted towards those who need it most. It seems the tests are not addressing the aspect of removing other services.
- DonaldFisk 3y ago> Basic needs are costly, and the programs you mention do not completely cover basic needs. If they don't cover basic needs they aren't fit for their intended purpose and should be increased so that they do cover them, if they aren't replaced by UBI.
- giantg2 3y agoThere are other programs that in combination do cover basic needs for those that qualify by need. You're not going to be able to replacement CHIP and Medicaid with UBI. At least not without extensive bureaucracy on the tax side.
- DonaldFisk 3y agoIf your country has a national health service, paid for by taxes, medical treatment isn't paid for when you need it and so wouldn't affect the rate of UBI.
- giantg2 3y agoThe context of this thread appears to be US based, so a national health system is not applicable in this scenario.