Those supporting the current system think that it triages need and allocates more to those with more needs. The basic income way of thinking doesn't consider this, everyone gets the same. Everyone getting the same is essential
I lean towards the latter, I think the benefits system is an expensive and ineffective way to triage needs. EG, rent allowance. If we could have a basic income set at a level above the median benefits for non workers, almost everyone would be better off, but not everyone.
Some people would be worse off, unless you take the highest possible benefits and use that as the basic income, but that's unaffordable.
The thing is, I think that the state is very far from meeting people's needs and assuming full responsibility for it. There are right now people who should be eligible or are eligible for some benefit, but aren't getting it. The State can help. It can minimize problems, but it can't solve them fully. I think charities, families and such also need to play a role. I think the idea that the state can make sure people's needs are met is just false. A lot of the triage mechanisms are about pretending that it is, not ensuring that it is.
But there are those without other help, that have no other way of supplementing income that have additional costs. These people will be worse off. Other people will be better off. I think the bigger win should inform the decision, but this is unlikely.
> These two perspective are almost irreconcilable.
Not really. There are many aspects of the current welfare state system, and there's no reason that some features couldn't be replaced with a UBI, while some situationally-tested features could be retained. The relative costs and effectiveness of various testing methods aren't all the same -- e.g., the adverse incentives of means-testing aren't present with, say, targeting aid based on medical diagnosis. One could replace means-tested programs with UBI but not other targeted programs. UBI can be conceived as replacing all targeted programs, but it doesn't have to be, and it especially doesn't have to do so all at once.
> If we could have a basic income set at a level above the median benefits for non workers, almost everyone would be better off, but not everyone.
Whether that's true or not depends on how you fund the UBI.
Those supporting the current system think that it triages need and allocates more to those with more needs. The basic income way of thinking doesn't consider this, everyone gets the same. Everyone getting the same is essential
I lean towards the latter, I think the benefits system is an expensive and ineffective way to triage needs. EG, rent allowance. If we could have a basic income set at a level above the median benefits for non workers, almost everyone would be better off, but not everyone.
Some people would be worse off, unless you take the highest possible benefits and use that as the basic income, but that's unaffordable.
The thing is, I think that the state is very far from meeting people's needs and assuming full responsibility for it. There are right now people who should be eligible or are eligible for some benefit, but aren't getting it. The State can help. It can minimize problems, but it can't solve them fully. I think charities, families and such also need to play a role. I think the idea that the state can make sure people's needs are met is just false. A lot of the triage mechanisms are about pretending that it is, not ensuring that it is.
But there are those without other help, that have no other way of supplementing income that have additional costs. These people will be worse off. Other people will be better off. I think the bigger win should inform the decision, but this is unlikely.