[lumb63]

Regardless of which side of the political aisle one is on, this is one reason why UBI/a negative income tax should draw attention. I don’t know if it is the best solution, but it would empower those on welfare today by allowing them to direct their own funds, rather than infantilizing them by assuming “government knows best”. It would also prevent or mitigate the “welfare trap” and disincentivize abuse of the social welfare system, for instance people choosing not to work to receive benefits. The third benefit is it would be cheaper to administrate due to elimination of the smorgasbord of different welfare programs in existence today. Yet, here we are.

[s1artibartfast]

This only makes sense if UBI is implemented as an alternative to current welfare programs, but to the extent that is done, I agree that it would be far better, allowing individuals to prioritize between needs, or even invest in their future.

I also like the idea of one lump sum showing how much people are getting from the government. It puts it up front and center, and the public can clearly decide how much is reasonable.

Last, if UBI is paid for with taxes, there would be no cliff, as net benefit would gradually taper then go negative as income increased.

[lumb63]

Agreed that it’s great from a transparency perspective. At the moment it is very complicated to track the value/cost of welfare. That makes it very easy for both sides to argue that it is too much or little - very few know what it is.

The problem, IMO, with most UBI studies I’ve seen is that they inject money from outside the system without funding the system via taxes. That makes their economic conclusions largely invalid, in my opinion. Their findings typically amount to “if we give some of our citizens free money that fell from the sky, they can afford more”.