[mikemotherwell]

> But if UBI replaced all normal welfare (excluding disability etc) is that such a bad thing?

Part of the problem is that some welfare is not about the money, but the support. UBI is less likely to help someone with mental issues than someone who hates working at 7/11 while studying. Generalised, UBI likely helps those who have an impermanent problem over those that have longer term issues.

Society likely would still need welfare services for those people who struggle with the multiple travails of existence.

Personally, I'm less interested in UBI in the first world, where welfare is pretty good already and the negative affects are unknown and complicated. I'm more interested in what affect it would have on the third world, where the downsides - disincentives to work etc - seem far less of an issue. https://www.givedirectly.org/ubi-study/ is a good example.

[ghostpepper]

I'm not familiar with the US system - does the term "welfare" refer to more than just monetary assistance?

I would assume social programs, mental health support, addictions support, job training etc. would still be around with a UBI.

[mikemotherwell]

I'm not American, so same situation, but welfare as a cost to government I am pretty sure includes all spending, not just that which goes to the final recipient. https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CRS%20Report%20-... is the best I could find.

I'm also pretty sure that is the case in almost all countries, where welfare is all money spent on, well, looking after people in some way?