> UBI doesn't prevent a fair welfare system on top of it. It doesn't have to be one or the other. UBI replacing unemployment welfare but not other welfare makes the most sense, IMO.

Another welfare system in addition to the existing welfare system is quite undesirable for most proponents of UBI who (like the parent I responded to earlier) present "no other welfare system" as a benefit of UBI.

I like the idea of UBI, but I agree with you that it can't replace all welfare. But UBI replacing unemployment welfare is not another welfare system in addition to the existing one. It would simplify the existing welfare system by replacing a complex part (unemployment welfare) with a simpler one (UBI).

I think it worth considering UBI in this light. I'm not a proponent of eliminating all other welfare.

However, most UBI theories rely on taking all welfare funds and redistributing them evenly. If you take unemployment welfare only, you're looking into massive tax increases or UBI that won't provide even very basic living.