you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -52 points 6 months ago (11 children)

Why not just give them money they can use for drugs instead?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 6 months ago*

    Because just giving them money, no strings attached, is proven to be more effective AND more efficient in both money and manpower. Every single time it's studied.

    The argument 'But what if someone abuses it?' always falls flat when countered by 'What if people are unjustly denied support they need because of the restrictions?' Because the first will always happen, no matter what, and the second only happens if you deny support. One person 'unfairly' wasting money on meth would be a more than fair price to pay for one more person getting what they need to survive, and if you believe otherwise... I don't know what to tell you. Maybe go grow some human empathy.

    Besides, tax money is wasted WAY more by the rich than by the poor.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    This is literally what every prosperous society already does.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    I know I didn’t realize so many people hated UBI here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    UBI doesn't exist anywhere nationwide (except for the elderly), minimum income guarantees however have been implemented in many countries. For example, in my home country the minimum allowed income for a legal resident in a single-person household is just over 1900 USD per month. Meaning: if your income is below this, you have a right to supplemental income from the government.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 6 months ago

    no, wait, you're onto something

    we could do that, and call it a first world level of healthcare or something, and ensure that everybody has access to the care that they need to live a good life

  • source
  • parent