[ricardobeat]

1) What's the difference for the receiver?

2) It only works as 'charity' between a vast income gap like you have here. Within local communities it's unlikely that many people have enough money and the disposition to support all the others.

[mantas]

> 1) What's the difference for the receiver?

We already know giving money to poor people makes them happy. The question is how the whole community reacts to UBI

> 2) It only works as 'charity' between a vast income gap like you have here. Within local communities it's unlikely that many people have enough money and the disposition to support all the others.

Looks like Kenya have pretty high GINI coefficient [0] inside of it's regions as well as nation-wide. Thus there's wealth to be moved around inside of the country or even it's regions.

Many western countries have much lower GINI coefficient, so following this logic, there'd be even less people to share money with other people. Which is why BI opponents think it won't ever work.

[0] http://inequalities.sidint.net/kenya/abridged/gini-coefficie...

[ricardobeat]

Charity doesn’t move wealth around and never will. I think you’re underestimating both the motives, breadth and cost of BI.

[mantas]

I totally agree that charity by itself doesn't move wealth. But $100 for the receiver is $100 wether it's charity or BI for the giver. What I'm saying is, we know BI works for receiver. The question is if donor side is willing to foot the bill. I'm well aware of BI scale and motives and that's why I don't think it'd work. Aside from when it approaches charity-like situation.

In day-to-day case, BI would be either working people sharing most of their wealth with the rest on massive scale. Which would cause uproar of the working people. Or charity-like situation where working people would just drop some breadcrumbs for the peasants. Which wouldn't be great either.