[sedtrader]

> America competitive in the world—lies in giving every citizen a regular allotment of money to cover basics like housing, food, and shelter.

Out of curiosity don't we already do this? We have public/section 8 housing, food stamps, medical/dental, etc... If we are talking about handing out cold hard cash as basic income, as the statement implies, then that is a recipe for disaster. There would be no guarantee that people would use that money for basics like housing and food.

[vonnik]

UBI is a direct cash transfer that the recipient can spend on anything. It's proven to be effective in international aid, and much more efficient that financing the enormous bureaucracies employed to decide whether someone is qualified. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-39038402

[mcguire]

The US social security administration spends ~0.7% of its total expenditures on administrative expenses. (Yes, it's more for the disability program, 1.9%.)

[rev_bird]

>If we are talking about handing out cold hard cash as basic income, as the statement implies, then that is a recipe for disaster.

I've tried and failed to figure out a less confrontational-sounding way to ask this, but do you have any data to back this claim up, or do you just not trust the poor?

[sedtrader]

> do you just not trust the poor?

Its not a matter of trust, its a matter of likely occurrence. In the event that someone uses their UBI on something non-essential like gambling/drugs instead of paying their rent. What do we do as a society? My solution is pay for the essentials like food, housing, medical, etc directly instead of handing out cash. This eliminates that possibility.

[rev_bird]

I appreciate the clarification, that makes a lot of sense.

[Suncho]

> There would be no guarantee that people would use that money for basics like housing and food.

Why would you want such a guarantee? You don't think people who need housing and food will buy housing and food with their money? I mentioned this in another comment, but I'm not aware of any kind of epidemic of people who can afford housing not buying housing.

If we do have such a problem, then I agree with you that we should help the people who are suffering from bad judgment. But why not do that in addition to providing them with a basic income?

[jpindar]

Not in the United States, no. All those things have restrictions, and in many cases waiting lists, and most of them are not literally money.

[fujiters]

But the thought is that it may still be more efficient to give them the money to squander themselves rather than have multiple layers of bureaucracy with lots of middle men to be paid to ensure that the money gets spent as it was intended.