2 ms·

People getting money who need it generally have other problems and so you need to get them in touch with the other help they need. Stopping scams of the system

People getting money who need it generally have other problems and so you need to get them in touch with the other help they need. Stopping scams of the system is a bonus, but the real value is (or should be!) evaluating everyone getting help to ensure they are getting the other care they need. Many people who need money are unable to handle money and so we still need programs to find them and ensure they are not getting scammed, or wasting their money (that is not saving enough to eat at the end of the month despite getting enough) If your only concern is people who are scamming the system, UBI ensures they are not scamming by definition. (we can debate if that is a good solution or not - a very different topic). However the main concern should be people who need help, and a large number of them money is a secondary need to their main problem.

finghin 1y ago
> [for] a large number of them money is a secondary need to their main problem. This is true, but there is plenty of evidence in the disability sphere that it's more cost-effective to give people with disabilities money up front because they can spend it on their own needs better than government programmes. Think of it like a business that wants to make sure WFH is comfortable for its employees. Many companies now just give a grant up front for monitors, chairs, etc. If they don't do that they need someone to admin/spreadsheet what monitor is best value for the company, what chairs, and investigate perhaps all the accessibility needs that might need to become a matter of policy for the firm. Updates to employee contracts. List goes on. And at the end, people will still complain because they think the company chose the wrong chair for them.
- bluGill 1y ago
  Which disability? There are number where they cannot manage their own life and so need intervention. So we need to examine everyone anyway to ensure those who can't get management done for them. Those who are more able of course don't need us to do it - but they are also borderline able to support themselves without help.

finghin 1y ago

> [for] a large number of them money is a secondary need to their main problem. This is true, but there is plenty of evidence in the disability sphere that it's more cost-effective to give people with disabilities money up front because they can spend it on their own needs better than government programmes. Think of it like a business that wants to make sure WFH is comfortable for its employees. Many companies now just give a grant up front for monitors, chairs, etc. If they don't do that they need someone to admin/spreadsheet what monitor is best value for the company, what chairs, and investigate perhaps all the accessibility needs that might need to become a matter of policy for the firm. Updates to employee contracts. List goes on. And at the end, people will still complain because they think the company chose the wrong chair for them.

bluGill 1y ago
Which disability? There are number where they cannot manage their own life and so need intervention. So we need to examine everyone anyway to ensure those who can't get management done for them. Those who are more able of course don't need us to do it - but they are also borderline able to support themselves without help.