Hacker News Reader

Comment by nixpulvis | Hacker News Reader

Why not strengthen need based assistance? Why give everyone $X/mo when you could give just those who need it the money? Why not strengthen programs like SNAP or affordable housing programs? UBI solves the issue of changing requirements and confusing/embarrassing applications, but I'm not sure it's better overall.

View on HN

> Why not strengthen need based assistance? Why give everyone $X/mo when you could give just those who need it the money? Why not strengthen programs like SNAP or affordable housing programs?

Because those are vastly less efficient, create traps where people can't afford to increase their income, and ultimately divide the population and tend to get dismantled.

one POV is that libertarians, who have a lot of beefs, are running the country right now, so what choice do you have? they keep winning elections.

another POV is, libertarians have empathy, it's quixotic, so how can it be harnessed to achieve your goals?

ubi is inherently cheaper because it's significantly simpler, means testing programs are expensive to operate and are often slow and needlessly bureaucratic

I have serious trouble believing UBI provides enough to solve the poorest peoples problems without needlessly costing a huge amount funding well off peoples hobbies.

You'll still need affordable housing, you'll still need food programs, etc. I don't see how you save on cutting those programs.

it would be nice if people had this same level of concern for the people already hoarding wealth, the guy buying more warhammer minis with ubi isn't the problem

Ballpark numbers: About 1/3 of Americans get government assistance, and typical administrative costs are 1-10% of the program.

Making these benefits universal would require spending 200% more, and save at most 10% in overhead.

Thus, optimistically, you'd be spending +190% more.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com