Yes, UBI is a good idea
< (2 of 3) Next position >
UBI is simpler to implement than other forms of welfare
Because UBI is unconditional, it requires less testing and monitoring than other programs.
< (1 of 4) Next argument >
Conditional welfare programs require administration and monitoring in order to ensure that funds are distributed only to people who qualify. This can sometimes result in the need for elaborate (and expensive) testing and monitoring systems.
Many different UBI schemes are possible, but all are simpler to implement than existing forms of welfare. Regardless of the specific implementation chosen, the administrative overhead normally associated with social programs is minimized for UBI because UBI does not require means testing for eligibility. Everyone is eligible by definition, and everyone receives the same amount of funding. UBI can replace all existing benefit programs, and it can be implemented alongside existing benefit programs as a complementary form of assistance. UBI could also be funded in a number of different ways, such as a flat income tax or a more nuanced tax on undesirable socioeconomic outcomes such as pollution or extreme wealth.
Implementation of UBI is dependent on the financial viability of the program. UBI is not financially viable in any form that would have a significant impact.
Simplification of processes leads to more efficiency.
[P1] Conditional social welfare programs are more difficult to implement because they require testing for eligibility. UBI is unconditional; it does not require means testing.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] The difficulty of implementing a social welfare program is not solely determined by the need to assess eligibility.