I thought BI would replace all social services. That's how its cost is justified?

> I thought BI would replace all social services.

Most proponents of UBI see it as, at least eventually, replacing some range of existing government means- and/or behavior-tested benefit programs and, possibly, some age- or disability-tested ones (in the US, most advocates would probably include, at a minimum, EITC, General Assistance programs, SNAP, TANF, Section 8 housing subsidies; some would also include Child Tax Credit, Tuition and Student Loan related credits and deductions, Medicaid, Medicare, and/or Social Security.)

I've never heard any advocate argue that it would replace all social services.

OF course not. Money can't stop adults from abusing children, or each other. Money only fixed money problems. We don't have Child Protective Services because parents are poor; we have them because some people are assholes.

Personally, I'd like to see us end the welfare programs for the rich.

> Personally, I'd like to see us end the welfare programs for the rich.

What welfare programs for the rich? The rich pay for everything. The bottom 60% net a negative ten thousand dollars. The next 20% break even (~$1000/year paid), and the top 20% pay out the nose.

ETA: Go read the report for yourselves: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/49440

For example, Walmart makes so much in government subsidies and tax breaks, and they pay their employees so little that their employees have to live off food stamps. The Waltons (owners of Walmart), are one of the richest families in the U.S. Pretty easy to see the connection.

Child protective services are not social welfare, they're law enforcement. If they were merely social services you could turn them away at the door. You can't. If you try that, they come back with the police and a court order.

Why is it justified when it replaces all, but not when it replaces some? It only needs to replace enough, not necessarily all.

Because all is more easily defined than some. Some is always some, even as the number of programs increases after the initial purge.

I think there is not any one set of concepts that can be called basic income.

Anyway, if people really are proposing that the state should give money away because then there is no need to protect children from bad parents, that's pretty stupid.

I'm a foster parent. BI will most certainly NOT eliminate the need for me. It's not about being poor. It's about not taking proper care of your children.

All payment social services, but not those that are doing enforcement activities. Replacing college loans, food stamps, welfare, etc. will save quite enough particularly if you pair it with actual fraud prosecution and verifying identity.

Financial benefits != social services