You're viewing a single thread.
UBI is just another populist handout, what We need is affordable housing and food not more money for it, making it partially state-run and/or controlled would make people look more optimistic about the future.
Let's plot it out: Who would be eligible for the affordable housing and food? What will we do to make sure it's affordable? How will people get it?
Do you think that all people ought to have a place to live and enough to eat? If so, one appeal of UBI is it's simple (compared to alternatives) to implement. Everyone gets it, and each individual can sort out the details.
Who would pay you UBI? For how long? What can be done if they take it away?
I wasn't asking those questions as a gotcha, when we talk about this stuff I like to think through how the implementation would look.
For UBI the federal government would pay it. It would be perpetual. If someone wasn't receiving the payment presumably they could file a suit, although it would seem unlikely to be an issue since it's pretty straightforward. Unlike means tested benefits, it's not complicated to determine who would be a recipient.
These kind of responses are so tiring.
While you're not wrong, prices need to come down, a UBI is probably the easiest thing we could implement literally overnight, cut back on some of the more aggressive welfare we currently have, save money overall and improve outcomes for a very large number of people. It's not a fix-all, never was, but it's a huge first step.