> I'm not sure why you bring up UBI? In the American context that's the generally agreed upon "alternative". There's no appetite for, say, all of the existing

> I'm not sure why you bring up UBI? In the American context that's the generally agreed upon "alternative". There's no appetite for, say, all of the existing welfare programs and also handing out cash. I don't think there's a meaningful distinction between "handing out cash" and "UBI", but of course I want to acknowledge that cash paid or services rendered (healthcare, etc.) can be a mix in an overall scheme and that UBI typically refers to a specific program. To me it's all the same thing with just a mix of how you want to do it but it's not fair of me to suggest that you think of it the same way so I apologize for that. > Not sure that will get me past the gate you are keeping here. If you haven't personally deal with or lived with crackheads, homeless, hustlers, etc. you have little to no insight into how to effectively work with people who are experiencing those issues or lifestyle challenges and you just make the problem worse in general while also wasting money. It's not gatekeeping to suggest one must have more experience with something in order to make informed decisions or create helpful and fair programs. But if you want to call that gatekeeping I'm happy to gate-keep. Last Tuesday I called the local police because a homeless guy was standing on the side of the road with a good chunk (the size of an average hand or so) of his leg missing, out in the rain at night, in 40 degree weather. He's not doing that because he just needs some UBI or healthcare, and there's no clinic or pamphlet that will "fix" that person's problems. The ivory tower will tell you we just need to get that person help, a safe place to live, etc. but they're wrong. I'm sure you see a lot of that in Germany too? What do you guys usually do when you see a homeless person in such circumstances? Do you give the money and does that fix the issues? > Someone has to pay the taxes to finance the redistribution. The average person can't get more out of the system than they pay in (by definition of how averaging works). That doesn't make any sense at all. Plenty of people in the United States at least get more than they pay in, even if it's not exactly a cash reimbursement. Not that I have a problem with that. > In any case, what you want to really avoid are sudden cliffs, where an extra dollar in gross income costs you more than a dollar in net income. And ideally, you also want to avoid unduly high marginal rates (even if they are still below 100%) from phasing out multiple, uncoordinated welfare payments. Right and we can just avoid those by not having restrictions on the income. It doesn't matter if Bill Gates gets a $2,000 UBI check, he's going to more than make up for it in overall taxes (ideally, unfortunately our government is all too happy to tax anyone but the ultra wealthy). I think the same is true for many other folks too and don't think it's a worthwhile concern.