[serviceberry]

Governments try stuff like that pretty regularly (you can only buy certain things with food stamps, etc), but it's typically expensive to administer and inherently prone to abuse. Buy groceries with food stamps, sell groceries, buy drugs. On top of that, it's just inherently difficult to structure this in a way that's fair and useful to every person. If I inherited or built myself a nice rural home, I don't want a government-issue apartment - either instead or in addition to what I have. Do I get nothing? That's unfair. Do I get the stuff I don't want?

"Lump sum in cash" is the most flexible and equitable system. But then - and that's a major problem with UBI - you end up with people who spend it irresponsibly and then need help to survive. So you end up with UBI in addition to all the existing social safety nets.

[teamonkey]

All sorts of benefits get scrutiny along the lines of “what if they spend it in ways I disapprove of?” Inherent in UBI is the notion of increased personal freedom.

The study showed that people used the money in unusual ways, spreading it around and sharing it, usually in ways that benefited the economy, but would not be allowed by a more heavily-regulated system like food stamps.

[em-bee]

also dietary needs and preferences. it's way do complicated. it adds a burden not only to the administration but also to those who sell the goods and services received.

another problem is that if i earn extra money i can't combine it with the basic income to eg afford a better apartment. everyone would be stuck with the apartment given.

you end up with people who spend it irresponsibly and then need help to survive. So you end up with UBI in addition to all the existing social safety nets.

i don't believe that. if you spend your income irresponsibly you are out of luck. change your habits. wait until the next payment and do better. if you can't do that then a social worker will help you.

[throwaway743]

While cash like UBI offers flexibility, criticizing targeted aid like food stamps misses the point. These programs are essential safety nets for the most vulnerable. While some misuse might occur – often signaling deeper needs requiring more services, not less food – focusing on that minority ignores the vast majority who rely on this aid to simply survive.

Suggesting it's "unfair" if you don't need specific help ignores the purpose of a safety net. How a society supports those facing hardship is a measure of its character. Worrying about potential misuse at the lowest rungs seems disproportionate when compared to massive government spending elsewhere. Ultimately, denying essential aid based on assumptions about how a few might misuse it is counterproductive and lacks compassion.

[markus_zhang]

Yeah I agree there are a lot of problems in this kind of schemes. I don't have answers for any of them, because giving a concrete answer to any of these questions probably leads to more questions.

You can still have some $$ in that package, so it's not entirely out of flexibility. I also guess people who receives food packages, as you said, may be willing to exchange for other stuffs. TBH the most important reason I pick provisions (with a bit of $$) over 100% $$ is because of the scale.