Your hypothetical has no relation to actual choices that voters and governments face. The point I made was that people will not vote for welfare unless it's means tested. It's really that simple.
Politics aside, I'm skeptical of UBI. UBI advocates claim that people will start companies and launch careers with their stipend. Yes, some people will do that but most will become layabouts. When the machines do all the labor, we can all become layabouts. But as long as our food, housing, healthcare and so on comes from other people's labor (and it still does) then we have an obligation to be productive.
> people will not vote for welfare unless it's means tested
I would. We have so much wealth, food and stuff in Western countries. We could provide a basic level of comfortable living for anyone with no strings attached. We could then remove minimum wage and all the things we do to subsidise low income workers and let the market find the floor that motivates people to work for a more luxurious existence.
Not that it would ever happen. I feel like a significant number would rather people would just die rather than being poor and "lazy". Of course, if you're rich and lazy, no matter how the riches were acquired, that's fine.
> We have so much wealth, food and stuff in Western countries. We could provide a basic level of comfortable living for anyone with no strings attached. We could then remove minimum wage and all the things we do to subsidise low income workers and let the market find the floor that motivates people to work for a more luxurious existence.
1. How is a system fair in which some people work producing food and other people get that food for free? The people who work will not put up with such a system. Why should they?
2. In such a system, over time, fewer and fewer people will choose to work. The economy will shrink, the country will become poor, and it will no longer be able to afford UBI.
When we have robots performing labor then we can reassess all this. Until then, means tested welfare is the only acceptable kind.
Are you saying that you'd rather live a very basic life with no work? That's the compromise I offered - a life of basic amenities without the system hassling you, and if you want more than that then you'd need to start working.
> In such a system, over time, fewer and fewer people will choose to work. The economy will shrink, the country will become poor
I don't think this would be a change for a lot of people, I certainly want more than the basics.
> How is a system fair in which some people work producing food and other people get that food for free
Our current systems are far from fair. Probably less fair than this by a long way. If you are a farmer and produce food what do you care where it goes so long as you're compensated for it?
>The point I made was that people will not vote for welfare unless it's means tested. It's really that simple.
I would agree with your point about the voters. But that just means the electorate are too stupid to realize that it is more efficient and cheaper to NOT means test.
Those who administer the means test are unionized, pensioned employees who cost the taxpayer a lot of money. The argument for UBI is that it is cheaper because you don't need all those bureaucrats/administrators who work in social services gatekeeping.
An argument against UBI, to me, is that the landlords will just raise their rents accordingly and scoop up the money. I believe that's what happened when the govt starting giving out money for low income earners to help them with their rent. I might be wrong on that.
A pragmatic question is: will it help more people than it harms?
Politics aside, I'm skeptical of UBI. UBI advocates claim that people will start companies and launch careers with their stipend. Yes, some people will do that but most will become layabouts. When the machines do all the labor, we can all become layabouts. But as long as our food, housing, healthcare and so on comes from other people's labor (and it still does) then we have an obligation to be productive.