[dragonwriter]

> And you really think society is just going to let people starve in the streets?

We (at least, public direct aid programs; food banks etc., may pick up some of the slack) do now if people squander welfare, why would UBI change that?

[manfredo]

My point exactly. Yang's assumption that we'll be able to scrap welfare program if we give people UBI is a fantasy. Because UBI won't change the fact that many people are still going to need welfare, UBI or not.

[dragonwriter]

> My point exactly.

Well, exactly the opposite, but sure.

> Yang's assumption that we'll be able to scrap welfare program if we give people UBI is a fantasy. Because UBI won't change the fact that many people are still going to need welfare, UBI or not.

No, your idea that we will be compelled to double cover against because some people might not use their first-line benefits ideally is fantasy, because people not doing that happens now and we are fine not double covering.

[manfredo]

So we're just going to let people starve in the streets if they waste UBI? Again, you're not seeing the fact that welfare often comes in the form of services, which the welfare receipts can't waste. I guess someone could try to seell soup they get at a soup kitchen but I doubt it's a effective or common.

Replacing welfare with UBI isn't going to happen, we will end up paying for both.

[ekiru]

I’m not sure if you’re speaking of the US or elsewhere, but here in the US this really is not at all how it works.

When my family was on food stamps, if we mismanaged our money and food stamps one month (spent them too inefficiently, accidentally let some food spoil, or such), then, yes, society would absolutely have let us starve (though not in the streets, as we did own our house and were in a rural area). We might have been able to get some further help from family or friends, but not from any form of welfare.

[dragonwriter]

> So we're just going to let people starve in the streets if they waste UBI?

Yes, just as much as we do now if they resell (e.g., for drugs) or squander their food stamps. Or, for perhaps a more perfect parallel, the same as the existing system does for anyone who had the income or assets to fail to qualify for means-tested benefits in the first place but fails to use them to meet their basic needs.

> Again, you're not seeing the fact that welfare often comes in the form of services, which the welfare receipts can't waste.

The things that directly stop people from starving in the streets are cash aid and aid that purchases food, neither of which are proof against recipient waste.

There are other forms of means-tested aid (largely, by dollar value, Medicaid) which are harder to misdirect, but UBI plus a default (with premium) public health insurance plan that you can opt-out of the purchasing a qualified private plan (a no B.S. individual mandate rather than a pay-a-small-fine one) handles that.

> I guess someone could try to seell soup they get at a soup kitchen

Soup kitchens aren't means tested public welfare, they are generally private charity, and are usually means-tested only in that people with any other options don't go.

[nailer]

OK but why? People need money. Why does it matter whether it's called 'welfare' or 'freedom dividend'?

[manfredo]

Welfare comes with strings attached, or is spent on services (e.g. a soup kitchen). These are much less likely to be squandered, as the funds' applications are not determined by the recipients. UBI is not subject to such restrictions. There's nothing stopping people from wasting UBI. As the previous comment pointed out, people will waste their UBI so we'll end up paying for both UBI and traditional welfare. This is bad for UBI proponents, who usually depend on scrapping nearly all welfare spending too afford UBI.