Welfare is taking money from productive people and giving it to unproductive people.
In order for this to work in a democracy, you have to convince the productive people that the unproductive people are unproductive for good reasons (i.e. means testing). If you don't do this, the productive people will vote for anti-welfare politicians.
So you would rather burn away money than giving it to someone who doesn't deserve it?
The idea is honestly crazy to me, if you had to choose between giving money to the 70% most needy people or giving it to the 80% most needy and also to a random 20%, would you really choose the first option?
Your hypothetical has no relation to actual choices that voters and governments face. The point I made was that people will not vote for welfare unless it's means tested. It's really that simple.
Politics aside, I'm skeptical of UBI. UBI advocates claim that people will start companies and launch careers with their stipend. Yes, some people will do that but most will become layabouts. When the machines do all the labor, we can all become layabouts. But as long as our food, housing, healthcare and so on comes from other people's labor (and it still does) then we have an obligation to be productive.
> people will not vote for welfare unless it's means tested
I would. We have so much wealth, food and stuff in Western countries. We could provide a basic level of comfortable living for anyone with no strings attached. We could then remove minimum wage and all the things we do to subsidise low income workers and let the market find the floor that motivates people to work for a more luxurious existence.
Not that it would ever happen. I feel like a significant number would rather people would just die rather than being poor and "lazy". Of course, if you're rich and lazy, no matter how the riches were acquired, that's fine.
> We have so much wealth, food and stuff in Western countries. We could provide a basic level of comfortable living for anyone with no strings attached. We could then remove minimum wage and all the things we do to subsidise low income workers and let the market find the floor that motivates people to work for a more luxurious existence.
1. How is a system fair in which some people work producing food and other people get that food for free? The people who work will not put up with such a system. Why should they?
2. In such a system, over time, fewer and fewer people will choose to work. The economy will shrink, the country will become poor, and it will no longer be able to afford UBI.
When we have robots performing labor then we can reassess all this. Until then, means tested welfare is the only acceptable kind.
Are you saying that you'd rather live a very basic life with no work? That's the compromise I offered - a life of basic amenities without the system hassling you, and if you want more than that then you'd need to start working.
> In such a system, over time, fewer and fewer people will choose to work. The economy will shrink, the country will become poor
I don't think this would be a change for a lot of people, I certainly want more than the basics.
> How is a system fair in which some people work producing food and other people get that food for free
Our current systems are far from fair. Probably less fair than this by a long way. If you are a farmer and produce food what do you care where it goes so long as you're compensated for it?
>The point I made was that people will not vote for welfare unless it's means tested. It's really that simple.
I would agree with your point about the voters. But that just means the electorate are too stupid to realize that it is more efficient and cheaper to NOT means test.
Those who administer the means test are unionized, pensioned employees who cost the taxpayer a lot of money. The argument for UBI is that it is cheaper because you don't need all those bureaucrats/administrators who work in social services gatekeeping.
An argument against UBI, to me, is that the landlords will just raise their rents accordingly and scoop up the money. I believe that's what happened when the govt starting giving out money for low income earners to help them with their rent. I might be wrong on that.
A pragmatic question is: will it help more people than it harms?
It's wildly insane to assume one can simply "know" who "needs help".
It's even worse to assume that a person - regardless of whether they can or can't easily tell - would be motivated to find out if they weren't handing out own food or money.
- "The calculations included in the full report show that extra
spending (around £600 million) could be expected by putting
more cash in the pockets of lower income households, via basic
income."
- "This, in turn, would generate greater VAT returns for Welsh
Government - a crucial source of revenue"
- "It would reduce child poverty by two thirds, to 10%"
- "With the financial protection of a basic income, a wide range
of hypothetical new freedoms can become possible. People
would be able to do things like finding suitable jobs, undertaking
financially risky ventures such as starting a new business or
developing their education or skills."
None of these quotes has anything to do with what I posted.
Normal, productive people will not sign off on their money being redistributed to unproductive people unless those people have a good reason for being unproductive. Therefore, even if such policies (welfare without means testing) are a utilitarian good, they are not politically feasible.
The government is taking money from productive people, and using it for all sorts of unproductive ends. Most people on welfare don't have enough to become productive - living is already a struggle.
The government would take the money anyway, and just redirect it to wars/innovation/PPE... it is not the 'unproductive' people - or the immigrants - that are taking most of the money. It's the wealthy abusing it to make themselves and their friends even more wealth.
How, in your system, does one define productive? Is a person who chooses to care for a disabled relative full time instead of working productive? Is a middle manager who provides little more than bureaucratic oversight (but none the less draws a salary and pays taxes) productive? Is an undiscovered-in-their-lifetime artist productive?
In order for this to work in a democracy, you have to convince the productive people that the unproductive people are unproductive for good reasons (i.e. means testing). If you don't do this, the productive people will vote for anti-welfare politicians.
Or maybe I just "have a pathology".