I have seen this type of proposal before, and I am curious: How does this prevent people from squandering the UBI money on non-necessities and then still requiring welfare? I'm not saying everyone would do it, but there would definitely be some who don't manage the money well and require extra support. Aren't we just paying more then to fix the same problem?
the reality is there would still have to be social programs for the mentally ill, children, addicts etc.
To a large extent it absolves my giving a shit, at least financially, about such people. Education, rehabilitation services etc -sure... but directly giving them additional money or even resources that could be purchased with money, yeah... sorry not happening.
As someone who fully supports BI, I say, unreservedly, we should not maintain these expensive, inefficient social programs for the minority who are too foolish to buy food and shelter with their BI. And research increasingly suggests it is a minority. BI also doesn't preclude non-monetary social programs, such as addiction treatment and money management classes.How does this prevent people from squandering the UBI money on non-necessities and then still requiring welfare?
It doesn't. If you get your BI check and immediately blow it at the casino, you don't eat that week. One of the benefits of BI is the dissolution of unemployment, food stamps, welfare, and every other inefficient social welfare program.
For me, this is a problem. Though it is a minority, the fact still remains there will be people who are starving. Ideally, a welfare system (which I understand BI is not) should make sure that those on it can only spend the money on necessities (accomplished through things like food stamps). If we eliminate current systems and replace them with things that are not welfare (ie BI), we are allowing for a subset of the population, who may have never learned good personal finance or are not used to such a system, to starve. I am not comfortable with such a program. I certainly see the benefits of BI, and I agree that the current welfare system is in need of overhaul. We must ask ourselves what the final goal of these programs is though, and if we conclude it is to provide the basic necessities for the people in our society, we should be sure the programs are actually achieving those goals.
I don't think any program can completely prevent people from harming themselves. If someone is so fantastically stupid, or so horribly addicted that they will spend money on something other than food, when they are literally starving to death, no social program can fix that. If they're that desperate, they'll find some way to turn what you give them into money to buy their non-food with.Though it is a minority, the fact still remains there will be people who are starving
I hate to use a Libertarian trope, but that's what charities are for.we should be sure the programs are actually achieving those goals.
I agree completely. I believe strongly in evidence-based policy. If we implement BI and find the homeless rate, the poverty rate, the starvation rate goes up, then we should definitely reevaluate the policy. But I suspect the rates will steadily drop, as more poor and homeless people apply for and receive their BI. They'll never reach zero, but again, I don't think that's possible. I'm not one to lightly say something is impossible.
I think it is something definitely worth considering. The current system is in need of overhaul, and UBI is one of the better solutions that I have heard. I just have concerns with it, as with many other policy proposals. I would be very interested to see it implemented and then monitored for a while.