3 ms·
Basic 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 li
by giantg2 3y ago
Basic 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.