[zazaalaza]

"Their abilities vary, but UBI won't help them as they will just waste it on some other scam."

This is correct. For scammers this will be a new gold mine. But I guess it will be a gold mine for everyone. It's 2.8 trillion every year injected into the economy. If you look at it like that than the question is, how can I divert some of that money into my own pockets?

[zentiggr]

Sounds like a good incentive to start services to actually help protect those most vulnerable to scams - my own mother could have benefited from something similar as one of her caretakers bilked her out of a few thousand dollars toward the end of her life.

A 'fool them once, shame on you... but it won't happen again!' policy would be a welcome thing.

[r-w]

> […] services to actually help protect those most vulnerable to scams

Services? This sounds more like a legislative than a marketplace problem. Pardon if it’s forward to ask, but what service do you envision could have helped protect your mother?

[zentiggr]

For quite a while, she had a financial assistant and a home visit assistant, each of whom visited at least twice a week. Because of insurance changes, the financial assistant had to stop.

It was in the gap of finding this out and getting myself back in the loop that the home visitor managed to get checks cashed that she didn't know about.

The services are already in existence, just not consistently or as comprehensively as they could/need to be.

A legislative issue to stop nickel and diming social assistance, for sure. These kinds of services should be available for anyone who needs them, not just whatever narrowly defined criteria in current funding mandates.

We as the public just don't care enough.