[tmnvix]

> UBI essentially assumes that everyone is a rational actor and that they will not succumb to spending the basic income on non-productive things (drugs, alcohol, gambling, excessively expensive consumables, etc). This is demonstrably false, especially if individuals don't have a day job.

Most people that collect social welfare payments in Australia and New Zealand don't do this - they are frugal with what they get and are careful to pay for their essentials first.

Those that aren't able to budget like this are often offered help in the form of budgeting advice and planning. Sometimes they will find themselves in a situation where they receive the payment they are entitled to, minus the cost of their rent - which is paid directly to their accommodation provider (often the government).

Beyond this, the number of people that don't benefit from their welfare payments because they fritter them away is vanishingly small.

BTW, here in NZ we do actually have a UBI, it's available to everyone regardless of income. The only condition is you have to be of retirement age. Unsurprisingly, it is very, very popular and nobody ever brings up the kind of objections to it that you have here with regard to UBI.

[neilwilson]

That condition is important though. Have you ever wondered why the retirement age keeps going up despite there being a constant shortage of work? That's because society will only grant you a certain number of years off in return for the years you spent on the job.

So retirement is just deferred wages. That's a different concept to getting paid for nothing all the time.

[tmnvix]

How to afford a UBI is a different issue. (As an aside, I believe it is possible, but only after fundamental tax reform that shifts the burden away from earned income and towards unearned income.)

My point with the pension example above was to illustrate that a universal 'living allowance' doesn't necessarily get squandered.

[diggernet]

I wonder how many UBI proponents here would be willing to adopt your immigration rules, which go a long way toward making your system work as well as it does.

[tmnvix]

I'm not exactly sure which rules you are referring to, but if you are alluding to Australia and New Zealand being difficult to emigrate to, I would just point out their respective population growth rates relative to the US (this growth is not due to natural increase - it is immigration that is driving it).

https://www.google.co.nz/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9...

[diggernet]

I am referring to the points system and income requirements, which give priority to people who are young, healthy, well educated, in demand, and/or wealthy. This ensures that most who are approved will provide substantial funding into the system before needing to draw from the system. As a result, the immigration-driven population growth you point to actually helps support the system.