Increase the frequency and reduce the quantity of disbursements. This won't solve for individuals who are completely incapable of taking care of themselves, but it will cover the vast majority.

I would love to see someone test the difference between a $35 a day vs $1000 a month UBI. The $35 a day approach seems like it would solve a lot of the problems people worry about with regard to misuse.

How do you pay rent on that?

I assume landlords would want some sort of automatic standing payment set up so they get paid daily.

If daily UBI was implemented then society will find a way to take the money easily and at low/minimal cost (automated, immediate online bank transfers are free in Europe for many years now). I think landlords would be quite happy as it is guaranteed, no worrying if the person is employed or not.

However back to the original concern about people just spending all this money and having nothing left for essentials, a daily payment still has this problem (ie imagine paying all your UBI on rent with nothing leftover for food, transport, healthcare etc).

If transaction cost weren’t so high having daily rent deductions seems like a good way to go not only for UBI but for everyone.

They don't, they can pay rent like normal, and if they blow it, they get evicted and become homeless, but next once they get sick of being homeless, they can then learn to save their ubi for 2 weeks to pay rent.

You don't have to spend it all every day.

You save a portion of the $35?

If they provide the money at regular intervals, than the person wouldn’t be out of money long even if they blow it all.

My suggestion would be no, we don’t step in. I think for one, we overestimate the number of people who would not use the money for their needs first. I think if we found there were a lot of people who still needed help, we could create an assistance group that can help people find the help they need.

So your solution to people spending all of their UBI money frivolously is to give them even more money? (instead of helping them spend it on, say, essentials)

No, I am saying the UBI payments aren’t a lump sum, they are regular payments (like every 2 weeks, for example)

Someone can only blow the two weeks of money.

If they still can’t survive, I am a saying we could have other programs to assist that group (it will be a much smaller population), and I am saying the help would be counseling, training, etc.

Various studies have shown that (perhaps surprisingly) just giving people cash works better... I can't read the article (paywall) but I expect that's the point of this trial too.

Of course, it would be good to it while also offering help with education, any substance abuse issues people might have, etc. but the paternalistic kind of "can't trust people on welfare to spend their own money" view just makes things worse. We've definitely seen it in Australia, they created a cashless debit card that locks out certain types of spending and trialled it in certain areas. It's been a massive failure, people not being able to get cash out to pay rent, it doesn't work in a lot of stores, forcing people to higher priced shops that are part of the system, the card has a lot of stigma attached to it so people are ashamed to use it, social outcomes are worse, and the administrative cost per person is about half as much as the actual annual amount given in welfare (!!) but the company that runs the scheme has links to the party that is in Government and donates to politicians so they're expanding the trials of scheme...

Or, you let nature take its course.

Society can only help so much - at some point, personal responsibility must step in.

That's just so heartless. Someone not able to prioritize housing and food over for example drugs has a very serious problem and needs help.

People in that situation are still human and are not doomed. People do recover from such ailments all the time given the right structure and support.

And if they can't recover they still deserve the support. That's our responsibility to each other. When "personal responsibility" means just letting people suffer and die we should leave it behind.

This is exactly why it won't work, according to the UBI "vision" that is usually promoted. There is no way that people who think UBI is a good idea, would also allow the recipients to blow their UBI on dumb stuff and end up on the street. In practice, it would just be a re-branding of the existing system of benefits, with a few more hangers-on.

What happens today to people who are given a room in a shelter and trash it, or spend all their EBT money on products that they resell/trade for drugs?

They end up homeless and begging or stealing to eat.

So, it sounds like UBI would be effective in reducing overhead, but not much else will change if people choose to blow their UBI?

UBI does more than reduce overhead - it gives better incentives and options for people who can't commit to a substantial number of hours per week (at least not initially) to be able to contribute to the economy. But it doesn't solve every problem and shouldn't be expected to.