I get the sentiment, but this comes across as patronizing and unscientific. A move to universal basic income would require cutting practically all of these programs in favor of just giving people the autonomy to decide for themselves. That works well when you couple it with universal healthcare and harm reduction programs like safe needle exchange sites.
People that want to abuse the system will do so no matter the red tape you put around it, and what good does that do for the overwhelming majority that rely on it in good faith? Unless you have data to suggest abuse is rampant, which afaik is not the case. You made the initial claim, so please provide sources.
Universal basic income would probably solve it, I agree. But the amount of money sent for food is not UBI, nowhere close. I solely commented on letting food welfare loose.
I do not have data on hand and after a quick search I am growing dubious whether may country even publishes that, so all I can lean on is experience. A lot of homeless consciously choosing alcohol over shelter, stories of people trading care packages for alcohol (seen this once myself, didn’t believe before), housed people I know who are poor just rabidly splurging every time they got slightly more money and thus spiraling back down.
It’s all my experiences, not propped up by any other data (will check later if I can find more with deeper search), but in this case the patronizing method of welfare seem actually better. At least if UBI isn’t an option.
Research on UBI is available with a quick search, with data on what participants are selected and what they prioritize. We can make some speculations from there. Try again.
I get the sentiment, but this comes across as patronizing and unscientific. A move to universal basic income would require cutting practically all of these programs in favor of just giving people the autonomy to decide for themselves. That works well when you couple it with universal healthcare and harm reduction programs like safe needle exchange sites.
People that want to abuse the system will do so no matter the red tape you put around it, and what good does that do for the overwhelming majority that rely on it in good faith? Unless you have data to suggest abuse is rampant, which afaik is not the case. You made the initial claim, so please provide sources.
Universal basic income would probably solve it, I agree. But the amount of money sent for food is not UBI, nowhere close. I solely commented on letting food welfare loose.
I do not have data on hand and after a quick search I am growing dubious whether may country even publishes that, so all I can lean on is experience. A lot of homeless consciously choosing alcohol over shelter, stories of people trading care packages for alcohol (seen this once myself, didn’t believe before), housed people I know who are poor just rabidly splurging every time they got slightly more money and thus spiraling back down.
It’s all my experiences, not propped up by any other data (will check later if I can find more with deeper search), but in this case the patronizing method of welfare seem actually better. At least if UBI isn’t an option.
Research on UBI is available with a quick search, with data on what participants are selected and what they prioritize. We can make some speculations from there. Try again.