[maxaf]

> Yang's plan would require that the cashier has to choose between the "UBI" or her existing benefits.

I'm neutral on Yang's campaign, but I like the idea of a UBI because administering it will be much cheaper than running existing benefits. Means-testing has a real and very sizeable cost.

What will happen to all the guvment workers who will get laid off once existing benefits have been supplanted by the UBI? They will go home to merrily enjoy their new UBI checks.

[dv_dt]

I think UBI is definitely interesting, but it can't wholesale replace benefits. For example, a major illness like cancer now can wipe out your income, your savings, and a UBI quite easily. I think UBI might be better than a range of some lower end benefits - but the also exists a variation of needs where we should commit to helping people with, that is going to exceed almost any general UBI threshhold in many cases, and still needs to be covered as benefits.

[maxaf]

Which existing means-tested government benefits are capable of paving over a major illness such as cancer?

[dv_dt]

One example might be medicaid - given it's in an incredibly barbaric and stressful way of exhausting your finances first, then trying to get onto the program all while fighting the illness.

[jimbokun]

> They will go home to merrily enjoy their new UBI checks.

Which might be cheaper for the government than paying them to do their current jobs.

[ryandrake]

It’s the government: They’ll just move everyone over to the new Department of UBI, with an Administrator of UBI, a Deputy Administrator of UBI, an Assistant To The Deputy Administrator, a team of consultants, inspectors, auditors, inspectors of the auditors, auditors of the inspectors of the auditors, and so on. Nobody will actually lose their job.

[maxaf]

Your comment is insightful, but left me no instructions as to whether I should be laughing or crying. So, I'll do both.