So it’s municipal-level welfare (means tested). Calling it scaled-back UBI is pretty disingenuous. Also, I wonder how well this works at the city level.
I am genuinely unsure.
I'm progressive but I recognize the issues with municipal universal welfare.
So unless they set up some kind of residency requirement or collect biometric info from the homeless and register them as NYC beneficiaries, I don't know what would keep homeless people from coming from other areas (other than, of course, a lack of money or transport).
Without going into details, people know how to get every type of aid from the government and live under virtual welfare for extended periods of time (well before retirement age). The total aid amounts to well over 10-30k easily.
I know people that take advantage of it and honestly I can’t believe we all foot the tax bill for it. It’s free money, people will find a way to get it, the same way corporations find tax havens.
The incentives aren’t right, and the loopholes too many. We cannot pay for freaking everything as there really is a moral hazard argument to be made here, especially when it’s obvious it’s misallocated.
Of course they tried to take advantage of programs like food stamps. They took advantage of it because they met what the government considered as qualified. The alternative, which my parents did have to do at times, was skipping meals so their kids had enough to eat. It's not taking advantage of a system if the people meet the requirements. No one says they're taking advantage of a coupon at a grocery store, it's there to be used.
In the UK: "A poll conducted by the Trades Union Congress in 2012 found that perceptions among the British public were that benefit fraud was high – on average people thought that 27% of the British welfare budget is claimed fraudulently; however, official UK Government figures have stated that the proportion of fraud stands at 0.7% of the total welfare budget in 2011/12."
Hard to know what percentage the people would accept in practice, but I've gotta suspect it's higher than the actual percentage that exists.
It’d produce more physical exercise.
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/business-25415922
But really, there are people that need it. Just maybe not the ones getting it.
This is from a UK perspective, but my opinion on this is partly practical (to avoid waste) and partly ethical as the ruling classes generally don't view poor people as being worthy of financial autonomy (They actually have more in common with socialists on this matter that they would be comfortable with).
We've just seen recently a scandal where the government, rather than just giving people money ("Money can be exchanged for goods and services."), has paid some contractor to dole out - at potentially significant cost, although the figure seems to be wildly varying depending on whom you ask - some tins of beans and pasta.
Australia gives around $1130 AUD / month to anyone that is low income, or doesn't have a job [1] (There is an additional $300/mo right now for COVID, but lets ignore that.)
It is means tested, but the result is that anyone that doesn't have a job (for any reason at all - don't want one, quit, can't be bothered) gets that payment. You get more if you have kids, and you might get more for rent assistance too. It's been that way for decades, and Australia's economy has not magically been destroyed. Inflation is not through the roof, prices did not magically go up to just use up this free money.
On the plus side, crime and violence are extremely low, and multiple Australian cities are in the top 100 most livable on the planet. [2]
[1] https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/individuals/services/ce...
[2] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/04/global-liveability-index-201...
E.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_Account_Program_...
And
https://www.wellesley.edu/albright/about/blog/3926-downsides...
Also,
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydor...
* The stigma (in non-covid times) toward "dole bludgers" is pretty significant. We're a pretty egalitarian society, but there's a fairly common distain towards welfare recipients. This would likely be reduced if everyone was receiving the payment.
* You mentioned that recipients receive payments even if they quit or can't be bothered getting a job. That's kind of the situation with the current payment (JobSeeker), which was created last year when covid hit. The usual adult benefit (formally called Newstart allowance) had very strict "mutual obligations" and required you to apply for N number of jobs per fortnight otherwise your benefits were cut (https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/individuals/topics/mutu...). Also, if you quit a job you would have a cooldown period (usually 8 weeks) before you would receive benefits (with exceptions for injuries, redundancy, etc).
* Rent assistance is basically guaranteed. If you pay rent, you will get a portion of this covered.
* Our welfare program also includes a pharmaceutical discount (almost all prescription meds are $6.60 for recipients).
It's a really decent program overall, but it's not UBI.
> * The stigma*
Sure, there's some stigma, but that's irrelevant in terms of the economic/financial impact to society.
> very strict "mutual obligations"
It's easy enough to fill out job applications left hand, etc. For anyone that wants it, it is extremely easy and TONS of friends from University did it for over a decade.
Applicants can't refuse, or they'll lose their payment, and this is taken advantage of.
That being said, we have a very high wealth gap here. My understanding is that social programs are generally very lacking.