Most studies suggest UBI would reduce the amount of money spent on other types of welfare and therefore could actually lower taxes.

UBI should replace all other money spent on welfare

it should be an either or... not an also add

We either have UBI, or we have social welfare. Pick 1

Probably not all, but vast majority things.

Your average, averagely healthy non-disabled person shouldn't need or receive or need more than UBI. There are always some that need extra support, but they are absolute minority.

But, for example, in the US something like 70%+ of the total Federal budget is already spent on programs for the poor (Medicaid, EITC, SNAP, school lunches), the elderly/retired/disabled (Social Security, Medicare, government pensions) and debt service.

Unless UBI proposes to take funding away from those who are already poor or already retired then where exactly is the money coming from?

If you replace all social welfare programs, you get around $3T/year, or $500/month for everyone (universal). That $500 now needs to cover all medical expenses, housing, and food for the subset of people who used to exclusively receive those benefits. That includes completely eliminating social security, which currently averages $2.5K/month.

Meanwhile, the vast majority of people receiving income (the universal part), would have a portion of their income previously provided by wages replaced with money that used to be used for social services for those that either needed them (based on the current definition of need) or had “paid in” with the expectation of income at old age. Who is benefiting from this?

Sounds like you are making a Case against UBI then.

I never said I was for either.. I was saying society needs to pick 1 or other the other not both.

If there was ever a comment in need of a cite, this is it.

You mean the same "basic economy" which the system that couldn't solve homelessness is based upon?

Economic Homelessness is caused not by economics, but by government policies

The CA Housing crisis, and extreme pricing inflation are all a direct result of government restrictions on new housing construction, and government regulations that make new housing more expensive to create

Yes, government policies informed by economists following the rules of "basic economy". It's not like politicians invent solutions on their own.

>>It's not like politicians invent solutions on their own.

yes they do... all the time

The cheery pick data, or just make up their own data to fit the narrative they want

>> government policies informed by economists following the rules of "basic economy"

You have proof of this?

The polices in CA on housing are not economic, they are a 3 legged combo of

1. Wealth protection. people like it when the house they own goes up in value 15% YoY . and dislike it if it drops. Even if over 5 years a person home went up 10% every year, then 1 year dropped 3%, they would be EXTREMELY pissed about the 3% and vote out the government that caused it. Thus a heavy incentive to ensure housing ALWAYS increases in cost

2. Environmentalism gone extreme.. Every housing plot has some endangered beetle that just must be saved

3. NIMBY preventing higher density housing, and creating minimum house sizes that are basically McMansions

None of which are economic or economists recommended

> You have proof of this?

You're asking if I have proof that governments are assisted by teams of experts? Just learn how modern administration works.

> The polices in CA on housing are not economic, they are a 3 legged combo of

The housing issue exists in pretty much every civilized country except those that invested heavily in public housing. It would be surreal if most governments of the G20 didn't know the rules of basic economy.

It does not even exist in every area of the US?

Here is in the Midwest we have no Housing Crisis, and very few homeless... We also do not have 50+ years of Heavy handed Government regulations...