Often proponents of UBI say that to finance it one can replace the inefficient provision of other social services, so having both is usually not the argument.
I think what most people fail to understand is that the very basis of our current economic system is to incentivize people to find exploits (see all the talk about “disruptors” and so on). And it is an unhealthy co-dependent relationship with the bureaucratic regulators, who to a large extend justify their existence on curbing the worst excesses of these exploits.
I think when people talk about UBI replacing wellfare, they’re mostly talking about things like food stamps and disability pay. Basic infastructure like public transit and basic necessicities like free universal healthcare and education would not be negatively affected.
Not an expert in the topic at all, but I believe that in the UBI trials that were run (in Europe?) still had the public healthcare and education system available.
I think UBI can support and make easier some form of social welfare. For instance, in the country I’m living at the moment, it has been made really difficult for people who have to rely on social welfare to access it. A variety of gates have been created in order to ensure that an applicant “really needs” access.
I believe that UBI would be a much more dignified way of delivering social welfare. However I’m thinking about it really as a progressive tax that starts in the negative and then increases with income, which might be different to what others mean by this.
Don’t disagree with your comment regarding the incentives in the current economic setup… however I believe that at the current stage the regulators rather aim to protect the excesses rather than trying to curb them.
Often proponents of UBI say that to finance it one can replace the inefficient provision of other social services, so having both is usually not the argument.
I think what most people fail to understand is that the very basis of our current economic system is to incentivize people to find exploits (see all the talk about “disruptors” and so on). And it is an unhealthy co-dependent relationship with the bureaucratic regulators, who to a large extend justify their existence on curbing the worst excesses of these exploits.
I think when people talk about UBI replacing wellfare, they’re mostly talking about things like food stamps and disability pay. Basic infastructure like public transit and basic necessicities like free universal healthcare and education would not be negatively affected.
Not an expert in the topic at all, but I believe that in the UBI trials that were run (in Europe?) still had the public healthcare and education system available.
I think UBI can support and make easier some form of social welfare. For instance, in the country I’m living at the moment, it has been made really difficult for people who have to rely on social welfare to access it. A variety of gates have been created in order to ensure that an applicant “really needs” access.
I believe that UBI would be a much more dignified way of delivering social welfare. However I’m thinking about it really as a progressive tax that starts in the negative and then increases with income, which might be different to what others mean by this.
Don’t disagree with your comment regarding the incentives in the current economic setup… however I believe that at the current stage the regulators rather aim to protect the excesses rather than trying to curb them.