[PaulJoslin]

1. I address this somewhere else. I agree this is broken, but this is not a problem with the benefit system - it's something to do with wages not rising accordingly with everything else.

2. Perhaps, although if they do something stupid with that money, they still need supporting - so you either let people go homeless / starve or help them (which creates a new layer of welfare)

3. I'm not saying twice the food would be consumed, I'm saying prices would rise accordingly which would mean consuming the same amount of food costs more than it does now. The goal posts will just be moved and the poverty line will be above the basic minimum everyone gets paid.

[lmm]

> 2. Perhaps, although if they do something stupid with that money, they still need supporting - so you either let people go homeless / starve or help them (which creates a new layer of welfare)

Maybe. Even giving people food isn't reliable - some people will sell it for drugs. Sure, we'd probably still need some kind of emergency welfare system for those circumstances, but drastically reducing the size and complexity of the welfare system is a win, even if we don't eliminate it entirely.

> The goal posts will just be moved and the poverty line will be above the basic minimum everyone gets paid.

The point isn't to make the unemployed any better off than they are now. The point is to make the working poor better off, incentivize work more than it is presently, and reduce the overheads of the welfare system.

[czr80]

The price of food will rise only if demand for food increases or supply falls, it won't change just because people have more money.