Disrupting bureaucracy means also higher unemployment, because that means, that those people have either to find another job or the will live on welfare as well.
I see this as a form of hidden unemployment that we just happen to favor sponsoring collectively for whatever reason. These people would fall back to basic income and be free to take jobs just like everybody else; depending on ability and willingness.
But I take your point and this is why I pointed out that dismantling this will be highly disruptive and unpopular. Ironically, the problem is bigger in countries that are more likely to otherwise be in favor of a form of basic income. I.e. countries with extensive existing social security systems.
> higher unemployment, because that means, that those people have either to find another job or the will live on welfare as well.
Remember, “welfare” means “health, happiness and good fortune”. Yet “living on welfare” has somehow come to mean being unable to afford shelter, food and decent access to society.
If you aren't faring well on it, it's not really “welfare”.
But I take your point and this is why I pointed out that dismantling this will be highly disruptive and unpopular. Ironically, the problem is bigger in countries that are more likely to otherwise be in favor of a form of basic income. I.e. countries with extensive existing social security systems.