That means that they have to decide who’s in that 5% and who isn’t, check for misuse, etc. That removes a main advantage of a truly universal basic income, that it is a lot simpler to manage than supplemental income.
Worse, for the 5% that qualifies, this doesn’t even give each of them $500 a month, it supplements their income to $500 (“The plan aims to reach 2.3 million people and is expected to cost the government about €3 billion a year.” implies the average receiver will get about $1300 a year, or $110 a month, even if the project has zero overhead. Even multiplying by average household size, I don’t think that gets to $500, as https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=823c79d39e3d4918968... says that’s about 2½.
So, basically, this is a no strings attached (at best) social security system for those with the lowest incomes.
There’s nothing wrong with that, but don’t call it UBI.
2 comments
[ 4.7 ms ] story [ 17.1 ms ] threadThat means that they have to decide who’s in that 5% and who isn’t, check for misuse, etc. That removes a main advantage of a truly universal basic income, that it is a lot simpler to manage than supplemental income.
Worse, for the 5% that qualifies, this doesn’t even give each of them $500 a month, it supplements their income to $500 (“The plan aims to reach 2.3 million people and is expected to cost the government about €3 billion a year.” implies the average receiver will get about $1300 a year, or $110 a month, even if the project has zero overhead. Even multiplying by average household size, I don’t think that gets to $500, as https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=823c79d39e3d4918968... says that’s about 2½.
So, basically, this is a no strings attached (at best) social security system for those with the lowest incomes.
There’s nothing wrong with that, but don’t call it UBI.