|
|
|
|
|
|
by twblalock
2121 days ago
|
|
|
> Net tax payers won't be paying for a huge administrative bureaucracy whose entire purpose is the inefficiency of duplicating functions already performed by the progressive income tax system, namely, means testing. You know that's not what would happen, right? We would end up with our existing systems plus UBI for a long time, because people would not be willing to abolish the existing systems. |
|
|
No, I don't.
> We would end up with our existing systems plus UBI for a long time, because people would not be willing to abolish the existing systems.
UBI/NIT supporters on the right tend to prefer either of UBI/NIT or abolition without replacement to current welfare programs; some actually prefer UBI/NIT, some prefer abolition but think UBI/NIT is a compromise that can get sufficient support from people more to their left to be viable, whereas straight up abolition without replacement is harder to win. Those people aren't going to want to keep existing means-tested welfare.
Opponents of UBI/NIT on the right tend to oppose means tested welfare to; if they lose and have UBI/NIT thrust upon them, they aren't going to seek retaining means-tested welfare to soften the blow.
UBI/NIT supporters on the left tend to prefer it as a replacement for at least those means-tested programs that it would eliminate eligibility for if counted against the means test, though they may prefer keeping other means-tested programs (though with much smaller caseloads, and caseload is the main driver of administrative expense in such programs.)
Basically, the constituency for retaining most existing means-tested benefit programs is left-wing opponents of UBI/NIT. But the right-wing supporters of UBI, left-wing supporters of UBI, and right-wing opponents of UBI together are almost certainly going to be a bigger block.