> But the government's part of the system is absolutely insignificant.
The easiest data point I could find is that the Executive branch spent $228 Billion in 2010 on government salaries, excluding the military and USPS[1]. That's almost $700 per person per year if you converted it all to a UBI. That's far from insignificant.
> But I also have a neighbor that will spend the cash component of the welfare he gets within the first 10 days of the month. If he got cash only and had to pay rent himself, I'm certain that he wouldn't
I don't see why I am obligated to pay for someone who refuses to take care of himself.
> That's almost $700 per person per year if you converted it all to a UBI. That's far from insignificant.
Right... but introducing UBI won't remove the necessity of the department of energy, or somebody sitting in an embassy in Russia, or the person who orders toilet paper for the Library of Congress.
We'd save money on administrative overhead for the programs that are supposed to be replaced by UBI, but those salaries aren't what's eating the budget.
> I don't see why I am obligated to pay for someone who refuses to take care of himself.
I don't either, but we're a tiny minority. Well, at least in my country we are, in the US it may look somewhat different.
The easiest data point I could find is that the Executive branch spent $228 Billion in 2010 on government salaries, excluding the military and USPS[1]. That's almost $700 per person per year if you converted it all to a UBI. That's far from insignificant.
> But I also have a neighbor that will spend the cash component of the welfare he gets within the first 10 days of the month. If he got cash only and had to pay rent himself, I'm certain that he wouldn't
I don't see why I am obligated to pay for someone who refuses to take care of himself.
[1]https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/how-mu...