4 ms·

But that's exactly the point of universal income. You don't pay them for idleness, you pay them regardless. You just don't pay them enough for their desires,

But that's exactly the point of universal income. You don't pay them for idleness, you pay them regardless. You just don't pay them enough for their desires, just their needs. All those things you want cost money to verify and adds massive administration costs. Another point of universal income is it's cheap to administrate. If you want to "pay" people for taking college, just subsidize it.

hershel 13y ago
isn't it possible at least in theory to decrease this administrative costs using technology, But maybe it costs said much because there's no real push to do so and large resistance from the public sector ?
- mercurial 13y ago
  As illustrated by the regular failures of large IT government projects, regardless of the country: not necessarily.
  - hershel 13y ago
    Large part of big projects fail. This happens everywhere. But still many do succeed both in government and industry. Why not look at them as examples?
LogicalBorg 13y ago
I don't think cost of administration is a big deal. The outcome of the system in people's lives is more important. Otherwise you'll end up creating a system where people sit around in idleness and drink themselves to death on booze. Paying for their needs is a good idea, but what about using the payment to motivate them to make their own life better in other ways?
- graylights 13y ago
  I think the costs of administration would exceed the payments. We're fine with bureaucratic jobs now because we need employment numbers, but those jobs aren't producing anything real. Look at the VA, it employs half as many people as the Army, just to manage benefits. What your proposing would, like the VA, require filings, delays, rejections, appeals and a whole lot of heartache. Simplifying things is the key selling point. You reduce pointless jobs that produce nothing and get rid of red tape in the process. I just don't think adding bureaucracy is the solution. If I want someone to go to school I don't manage it on the individual, you'll spend half your money on administration. I spend it by subsidizing tuition. Some people will drink themselves to death, but they already do that in our current system. How does that matter? The only difference I see is they'll have a lot more free time. Maybe they'll waste it, maybe they'll improve themselves.

hershel 13y ago

isn't it possible at least in theory to decrease this administrative costs using technology, But maybe it costs said much because there's no real push to do so and large resistance from the public sector ?

mercurial 13y ago
As illustrated by the regular failures of large IT government projects, regardless of the country: not necessarily.
- hershel 13y ago
  Large part of big projects fail. This happens everywhere. But still many do succeed both in government and industry. Why not look at them as examples?

LogicalBorg 13y ago

I don't think cost of administration is a big deal. The outcome of the system in people's lives is more important. Otherwise you'll end up creating a system where people sit around in idleness and drink themselves to death on booze. Paying for their needs is a good idea, but what about using the payment to motivate them to make their own life better in other ways?

graylights 13y ago
I think the costs of administration would exceed the payments. We're fine with bureaucratic jobs now because we need employment numbers, but those jobs aren't producing anything real. Look at the VA, it employs half as many people as the Army, just to manage benefits. What your proposing would, like the VA, require filings, delays, rejections, appeals and a whole lot of heartache. Simplifying things is the key selling point. You reduce pointless jobs that produce nothing and get rid of red tape in the process. I just don't think adding bureaucracy is the solution. If I want someone to go to school I don't manage it on the individual, you'll spend half your money on administration. I spend it by subsidizing tuition. Some people will drink themselves to death, but they already do that in our current system. How does that matter? The only difference I see is they'll have a lot more free time. Maybe they'll waste it, maybe they'll improve themselves.