[luckylion]

> drastically simplifies the government's part of the system

But the government's part of the system is absolutely insignificant.

> empowers people to make their own decisions about their own lives, needs, and wants

I get that. But I also have a neighbor that will spend the cash component of the welfare he gets within the first 10 days of the month. If he got cash only and had to pay rent himself, I'm certain that he wouldn't. Obviously we can't let him be homeless, so the state would jump in and pay his rent. On top of giving him the money to pay his rent. That would obviously be an improvement for him (+700€/month to spend), but I don't see how it would be sustainable.

[dahfizz]

> But the government's part of the system is absolutely insignificant.

The easiest data point I could find is that the Executive branch spent $228 Billion in 2010 on government salaries, excluding the military and USPS[1]. That's almost $700 per person per year if you converted it all to a UBI. That's far from insignificant.

> But I also have a neighbor that will spend the cash component of the welfare he gets within the first 10 days of the month. If he got cash only and had to pay rent himself, I'm certain that he wouldn't

I don't see why I am obligated to pay for someone who refuses to take care of himself.

[1]https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/how-mu...

[luckylion]

> That's almost $700 per person per year if you converted it all to a UBI. That's far from insignificant.

Right... but introducing UBI won't remove the necessity of the department of energy, or somebody sitting in an embassy in Russia, or the person who orders toilet paper for the Library of Congress.

We'd save money on administrative overhead for the programs that are supposed to be replaced by UBI, but those salaries aren't what's eating the budget.

> I don't see why I am obligated to pay for someone who refuses to take care of himself.

I don't either, but we're a tiny minority. Well, at least in my country we are, in the US it may look somewhat different.

[RangerScience]

> system is absolutely insignificant.

TBH I don't know. How much money is spent determining whether or not someone is eligible for welfare? How much is spent on sourcing vendors and distribution?

> have a neighbor

Ehhhhhh lot of things going on here and lots of ways to look at it. I can think of a bunch of ways to make this work out, but ultimately, it's a Chesterton's fence issue: without understanding why things are the way they are - which you'd only get by engaging with the person - any solution is both likely to fail, and likely to result in disempowerment; contributing both to an immediate failure and, I'd expect, many future failures.

If UBI resolves, to pull a number from no-where, 90% of the issues social workers are needed for, now you've got 10x the social workers to do that engagement with your neighbor.

[luckylion]

> TBH I don't know. How much money is spent determining whether or not someone is eligible for welfare? How much is spent on sourcing vendors and distribution?

Probably a lot in absolute terms, but insignificantly little in relative terms, i.e. if you pay somebody (in cash or in rent or vouchers) $1000, you're not adding $1000 on top. Romney claimed as much in 2012 and the numbers don't support it [1]. Money quote: Combined federal and state administrative costs range from 1 percent to 10 percent of total federal- and state-funded program spending.

That's considerable, but it's not going to fund UBI, especially not if there's an expansion beyond those that currently receive money from the programs.

> If UBI resolves, to pull a number from no-where, 90% of the issues social workers are needed for, now you've got 10x the social workers to do that engagement with your neighbor.

True, but we've tried "increase the number of social workers" in Germany, and it didn't help. After all, you can only achieve so much with offered help. If you want change, you may have to force it. It's similar with drug addicts: you absolutely can get them clean, but only if they want to (and want it enough to stick it out, as it's not a fun process even with help and support) or if you force them. Simply building rehab centers alone isn't going to do it.

I'm not a fan of UBI, I believe it will be a terrible thing medium to long-term and will create a permanently unproductive under-class with zero agency that requires constant adult supervision. I do believe in a Universal Right To Work, though. Guarantee them a job, even if it's not a productive one but merely picking up trash, visiting lonely elders or explaining directions to tourists, and pay them in return. It changes the dynamic and you keep a habit of exchanging work for money (and getting out of bed), and it has basically none of the moral hazards of UBI, does not incentivize not-contributing, does not require closing your borders immediately after introducing the policy etc. I'm sure it's hard to work out as well (e.g. you don't want the state to ruin markets etc), but I believe it's a much better approach, and it's also much easier to sell to those that will have to fund it (which, let's not kid ourselves, are never going to be the 1%, the international corporations or those that inherit large sums of money, but the average worker).

[1] https://www.cbpp.org/research/romneys-charge-that-most-feder...