|
|
|
|
|
by ThomPete
4039 days ago
|
|
Thats not what we are talking about. We are talking about the system to control that people are in fact getting what they are supposed to and not cheating. Thats many many times bigger than you would think. Also no one is talking about not spending on road and the current system doesn't really do that either IMO. |
|
http://www.cbpp.org/research/romneys-charge-that-most-federa...
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/admin.html
Making the spending a couple percent more effective doesn't really even start to pay for spending 10x.
So administrative savings aren't actually all that important a consideration when it comes to a basic income (Put it this way: the programs at the first link could have 100x their current administrative costs and still cost considerably less than a basic income).
Replacing contingent benefits with a basic income should be a positive, it's just that the expected change can't be all that large compared to the numbers required for even a small basic income.