[speedplane]

I'm pretty confounded as to why UBI has become so popular. Many people already get a ton of social services from the government. Don't see how getting $20k of UBI per year is better than getting free medical care from Medicaid and subsidized housing from HUD, both which likely add up to the same amount.

Don't see why UBI has to be in cash instead of services.

[TeMPOraL]

Because:

- While it makes sense to restrict some free money to healthcare and retirement (because many people don't plan long-term), for most other services it would be adding complexity and waste. Individuals can allocate money between their basic needs better than state bureaucracy can. Or phrased in another way - UBI in services significantly restricts your authonomy as a person by making all spending decisions basically for you. If you were getting food stamps, you couldn't e.g. decide to eat ramen for two months in order to save up money for fixing your car or buying a computer.

- Service-specific welfare usually implies means testing, which is inefficient, requires huge bureaucracy to work, and - most importantly - it's incredibly dehumanizing. It's no fun when, in order to get additional $50 a month, you have to subject yourself, your family and your extended family to interviews from social workers, who'll surveill and comment on the most private aspects of your life. UBI is a popular concept because it means to be universal, i.e. no means testing.

[speedplane]

I think I can rephrase your points into more basic principals:

- Freedom: UBI gives individuals more freedom in how to spend their subsidies.

- Privacy: By eliminating means-testing, we eliminate the governments intrusive accounting of an individual's life.

- Efficiency - Spending: People can allocate their UBI more efficiently than the government can allocate funds on services.

- Efficiency - Means-Testing: The process of means-testing is expensive and a bureaucratic drain on resources.

The first two I entirely agree with; the third I'm not sure about, but the last I'm almost certain is untrue. Means-testing is expensive overhead, but that process is definitely less expensive than giving everyone the benefit. If it weren't, the government would already be giving everyone Medicaid. I suspect the real proponents of UBI are advocating for freedom and privacy more than anything else.

[rm_-rf_slash]

Services are inherently more inflationary than cash because as long as the customer (government) pays, you can add more and more services to only marginal benefit of the served.

On the other hand, cash means that nobody is entitled to receive it except the recipient, which spurs competition to get their money, resulting in better services and lower costs.

[usrusr]

Because of the U in UBI. Conventional benefits pay for proof of need, they reward incapability. A terrible incentive.

[speedplane]

But universal benefits pay everyone, which remove all incentives.

[usrusr]

The U removes the incentive to seem/feel incapable. Positive incentives stay, except maybe working to not starve, but that one is already eradicated with conventional benefits.

I haven't seen anyone advocate a "exclusive universal basic income", where other forms would not exist.