3 ms·

Also: Keep in mind that you could cut almost all social systems (unemployment insurance, the whole departments that manage that stuff currently, ...)

• renata 13y ago
  One thing that has always confused me with this claim in regards to basic incomes - if our current model is "We have welfare so people don't die when they can't get food, medical care, etc", then what happens when someone receiving a basic income spends it all on hookers and blow? Are we okay with letting him die now, because he had the option to pay for his basic needs and just chose not to? Or are we still going to have to have some kind of safety net for idiots?
  • DanBC 13y ago
    i) You force people to pay for health insurance. (Taking it from their pay, for example.) ii) You protect children, because they are innocent victims. iii) People taking drugs might be addicts, and need health care to treat their addiction. But other than that, once they spend the money it's gone and if they don't have food then they go to a charity or route around in bins. We talk about the social housing in the UK, but it's hard to get social housing, and being a person who is homeless because of drink means you're going to end up in hostels at best.
  • rsynnott 13y ago
    Most welfare systems in developed countries don't specify what the recipient has to spend payments on, anyway.
    • rb2k_ 13y ago
      Yeah, food stamps don't exist in most countries because it seems undignified
      • rsynnott 13y ago
        Well, also because it's a waste of money; administering a food stamp system is far more costly than administering a welfare giro system, and has no clear benefit.