[tachudda]

Often times when I've seen this discussed, the reasoning behind straight cash vs just necessities, it often has to do with overhead. If you just give people money, its easier to administer, everyone in the program gets the same cash, theres no inventory to administer, theres nothing to check. The other thing often discussed in the same manner is help that has certain "morality" clauses, such as welfare or help, but only if the poor person makes certain decisions. As far as total impact, you can do more by just giving money, and not spending any of it policing behavior.

[matte_black]

To me this is just throwing money at a poverty problem and hoping it will fix itself.

It will never work, UBI will inevitably raise prices of things so people will need more basic income to get what they want. That means having to either give out more UBI or have the program become irrelevant because it doesn’t keep up with standards of living.

A free house though is a free house. It does not become any less of a houses just because more people have houses. And you don’t have to give out more house to each person over time.

It seems to me that we need better systems for administration of free goods. These are problems we can solve, permanently.

[aeorgnoieang]

> A free house though is a free house. It does not become any less of a houses just because more people have houses.

What about houses that are damaged or destroyed? Will your "trivial" system repair or replace them? What if the occupant is responsible for the damage or destruction? What if this is the second or third such free home they've destroyed?

And how will people move? Can they move? Can people trade homes? Can they still buy and sell them? If a person sells their home will your system give them another one for free?

[matte_black]

Why do you think a free home must come with some restrictions? It’s very simple. It’s yours, free and clear.

Do whatever you want with it, even destroy it. But you’re not getting another one. And if it’s damaged you need to repair it. Buy insurance if you can. If you can’t deal with it get a free condo or apartment instead not a SFH. If theres a big natural disaster and your home is affected apply for aid or perhaps a new home for these special cases.

[geezerjay]

> If you just give people money, its easier to administer, everyone in the program gets the same cash, theres no inventory to administer, theres nothing to check.

You'll also get rid of all the public sector workers which represent a significant population cohort that is directly and personally invested preserving the rulling regime and also the status quo. Once you lose that, you destabilize a whole society.