People who can't manage their own finances also tend to do badly at acquiring program support when aid comes in other forms too. However, it might be an improvement in overall effectiveness for charities to operate in models which charge part of the money from a basic income stream to administer aid (it greatly simplifies effort for charities which would normally have to devote a lot of attention to just getting together funding).

On the other hand, being able to 'sign over' a portion of one's basic income might open up all sorts of other abuses. (e.g. some sort of payday loan company that says, sign over your Basic Income for a year and I'll give you a lump sum right now...)

I would make it illegal and unenforceable for BI to be used as collateral for any financial transactions. Much in the same way that your IRA cannot be used to secure a loan [1], I would prohibit BI funds from being used to secure loans in any way.

[1] IRS Publication 590, "Prohibited Transactions", https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p590a.pdf

I think BI definitely presupposes adequate management of your own finances. At some point it is a bit of a carrot and stick approach – maybe something like if you are on the food program for more than 3 years, then you start paying more for it, or something of the sort? I'm not sure.

> In the UK currently, we do that by things like having pre-pay meters for electricity - but the pre-pay electricity costs more even though you paid for it up front!

Given this information, I don't see how it is similar. It seems more like stupidity of the part of British Gas or whoever. Are the prepay meters used by poorer families who get subsidies paid directly into those meters or something?

No, they are often present in properties where the tenants have had trouble paying the bills in the past for whatever reason. As I understand it, they are very difficult to get rid of even for new occupants.

The electricity supplier gets more for the same electricity at no risk. Thats not actually stupid.. but in my opinion, it is in some way evil.

> The electricity supplier gets more for the same electricity at no risk. Thats not actually stupid..

Yeah, I meant stupid as in, 'No person would take that "deal" if they could help it.' I guess the people who are taking this deal are forced to take it, and that does make it pretty bad (especially if you are a brand-new tenant who isn't actually connected to the previous one who had trouble paying).

Here in the US, my electric coop offers a pre-pay plan for those who can't afford a deposit or who have had their electric shutoff (or anyone else that wants it). I don't think it is any more expensive than the post paid service, though. They also offer a budget billing where they average your last 12 months of service and bill you the same amount each month.