[thecrow1213]

As a BI fan, this is a great question. While BI does simplify welfare distribution it does put more responsibility on the receiver. If we wanted to protect from misuse of funds we need a way to restrict how they spend their BI, like how food stamps work.

BI should be spent on life necessities while earned income should be disposable and/or go into savings.

[acgourley]

The whole point of BI is that it's unrestricted, so I would say you're not actually a BI fan but instead broadly in favor of well run social programs.

[nardi]

No, the whole point of BI is that it goes to everyone, so there is no disincentive to work.

[dragonwriter]

> If we wanted to protect from misuse of funds we need a way to restrict how they spend their BI, like how food stamps work.

Except, of course, that food stamps don't work for that, despite the administrative overhead that trying to enforce specific uses puts, because people can (and do) find ways to illegally convert SNAP benefits, at a discount, to cash or non-covered goods and services.

Which is among the problems that UBI is offered to solve, by eliminating the ineffective paternalistic bureaucratic administration.