> I have done no such thing. I have never said that welfare receipts "uniformly" do anything. I am just saying that SOME will not use their money wisely and our

> I have done no such thing. I have never said that welfare receipts "uniformly" do anything. I am just saying that SOME will not use their money wisely and our choice is either to provide them with additional benefits or let them die. > If we are going to continue to give some people the benefits we are trying to get rid of, they won't go away and more and more people will find ways to get the additional benefits. Yes, means-testing is the enemy, and reducing the administrative burden of welfare is most of the cost savings that UBI offers. Still, even if we can't reform American healthcare at all, reducing means testing to just medical care would be huge. After all, you're now testing for the severity and expense of the medical condition itself, not for income or assets--and to falsify that, a welfare recipient would need an MD to commit blatant fraud. > Interesting that you are now using the phrase "could still end up cheaper than our current system.". You seemed so positive before that it would and now you don't seem so certain. You may be confusing me with other UBI advocates. I never claimed UBI would be cheaper than the current system. > I'm all for trying something, but I think that something should be a negative income tax rather than UBI to prevent any negative incentives that come with UBI. Have you looked at the incentives described by, say, the Adam Smith institute? They describe a negative income tax as incentivizing more participation in the labor market by poor people, due to the lower marginal tax rate: https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/nit-or-ubi-that-is-the-economic-question https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/nit-or-ubi-that-is-the-econom...