Kialo requires cookies to work correctly.
Should There be a Universal Basic Income (UBI)?
A UBI is more efficient than traditional welfare programs.
The reliability of a UBI, relative to other forms of welfare, allows the poor the ability to better plan and budget their spending.
Employers will no longer be forced to play the role of social security guarantors. Therefore, employing people will be
and therefore more accessible.
A UBI is portable: people can get the money delivered to them wherever they are. The UBI provides greater physical mobility than most sources of income. This allows people to move around to pursue better opportunities while having a safety net in place.
A UBI helps reduce government bureaucratic and regulatory burdens.
A UBI is customizable to a person's needs, where this one program applies to multiple parts of life. Welfare programs are specific (like one for finances, another for health, etc.), where each program has one, not multiple applications.
A UBI is flexible with its receiver base. Instead of providing "one-size-fits-all", "cookie cutter" benefits for each receiving demographic, a UBI allows anyone to do what they want with what they receive in any demographic, even if it might not make sense in how it should be used.
A UBI may be so efficient (especially decreasing the costs from other welfare programs) that it generates a surplus. That surplus may be distributed to those who need more than the UBI provides.
Because people would need to continue to receive a UBI wherever they go (unlike other welfare programs that require in-country use), the money from a UBI could be something they bring and use when they travel.
Current welfare systems are already highly efficient. Empirical evidence shows that at
least 90%, if not 99%, of the capital used
for American welfare systems goes towards the beneficiaries.
Welfare programs have the advantage that they can direct welfare spending in order to promote positive choices by the recipients. Because a UBI provides direct cash payments this is not possible.
Traditional welfare programs allow governments to target specific issues in specific communities, a benefit that is not available with a UBI.
A blanket dividend such as UBI struggles to account for geographical disparities in the cost of living. In some regions, recipients might receive proportionally too much or too little as compared to other recipients in other areas.