3 ms·
> Firstly, there is no way, on this earth, that you are going to convince the population that a healthy young male who wants to only play videogames gets exactl
by brightball 2y ago
> Firstly, there is no way, on this earth, that you are going to convince the population that a healthy young male who wants to only play videogames gets exactly the same amount as a crippled mother who is unable to work.
I said reduce, not replace. If you get $800 / month in UBI and $5,000 / month for disability (crippled mother example) then you would reduce disability by $800. There would be no change to the benefit for the crippled mother who is still getting $5,000 / month ($4,200 from disability and $800 from UBI).
- lelanthran 2y agoThen what you have, at the end, is just an additional entire department devoted to a welfare program, feeding from the same pool of funds that all the existing welfare schemes are using. I mean, using "reduce" to mean "lower existing welfare payouts (not costs) by enough to allow UBI welfare" is very different to how UBI proposals normally mean "reduce". There is a need for something, but UBI as it is currently being proposed by world+dog is not that thing. I think your argument might be the first one that I've seen that doesn't use "reduce" to mean "almost eliminate".
- brightball 2y agoThink about this like a plug-in hybrid vehicle. Most people drive less than 35 miles per day so by moving that mileage to electric, you eliminate the vast majority of gas usage. By taking out the first $800 from every other benefit program you will eliminate the vast majority of their usage as well which will shrink them enough that they can be safely reformed if need be.