• Byter
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m also a UBI layperson, but this is my understanding:

    Basic incomes don’t need to match or exceed the cost of living to provide some of their purported benefits. One of those benefits is replacing difficult to administer welfare services (of which there are some discussions in this thread). In that way the $2700 per person per year can be more efficiently allocated (towards an ideal national gross prosperity) by the individual.

    This might solve issues like the infamous “welfare cliff” that have arisen from difficulties in administration.

    • voluble@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is interesting, and I didn’t think of it this way.

      But, if the only way welfare administration can be streamlined is to give everyone money, I’d feel guilty about taking it. Wouldn’t be hard to find a way to spend $2k, sure, but knowing I didn’t truly need it to make ends meet, while other people did, & maybe would have been helped even more if they had some of my share? Ach, it wouldn’t feel right. It would be cool if the program was opt-out, and people who chose to opt out got a break in some other way, maybe on taxes that go to retirement savings. Maybe that’s a horrible idea, I don’t know.

      Anyway cheers, thanks for explaining, I appreciate it.