[codersfocus]

UBI is the wrong approach.

Once CBDCs become a thing, citizens should have the ability to have direct credit relationships with the central bank.

We can then transition from a cash based monetary system to an accrual based one (similar to how businesses do their accounting.)

Public benefits, then, rather than being given out like it is currently (e.g. you get $200 for food stamps) will instead be based on allowing you to draw credit.

So, the eGovCreditCard would for example always allow any citizen to draw $200 per month for food expenses.

Potentially, if we want to do more generous policies a la "UBI," we could add e.g. $1000 always being allowed per month for rent.

Health care similarly, instead of if the archaic and very inefficient system we have now where those on the dole often go to emergency rooms, money is funneled through "insurance", etc... would allow you to draw money for regular doctor care. Maybe at a set maxiumim limit per citizen, e.g. $1M.

[kajumix]

Your suggestion basically amounts to: digitize and centralize welfare. There are already electronic cards for food. If the money is drawn directly from the central bank as credit instead of from the state welfare fund, it won't make it any more efficient. In fact any experimentation among states will disappear. Also, if CBDCs become a thing, you could see a slow slide into behavior control. What people eat, and where they live becomes a concern for the central bank, because they get to decide who the approved vendors are for those things. "Central" anything is a design smell in most cases.

Getting rid of cash also requires proper paper work and identification so you can sign up for the CBDC wallet. In that case you're excluding the very people from the system who need it the most.

[codersfocus]

I never said get rid of cash, CBDCs and cash can coexist.

Also it would make welfare more efficient, as you can garnish earnings from citizens to repay back the debt, whereas now it's just a gift.

[RiverCrochet]

In this scheme, what prevents a central bank from abusing its position and denying you access to food due to ideological concern? Cash (for basic stuff) spends the same regardless of my political affiliation or criminal history. An employer can do the same, but I can get a new employer with some effort. I'm not sure I can switch to a different central bank easily.

[codersfocus]

CBDCs and cash dollars can coexist. If you don't like borrowing from the government, no one is forcing you, you can earn and spend as you do now.

[jas8425]

So you're saying that instead of receiving $200/month worth of food, poor citizens should go into debt to the central bank by $200 every month? How would that be a better approach? Personal debt is already a huge burden, this seems predatory.

[FpUser]

>"...credit relationships with the central bank"

Will that come with the healthy interest rate one could never hope to repay?

[codersfocus]

Interest is not always fulfilled by usury.

For example, friends lend each other money without usury simply because the "interest" comes from helping a friend.

Similarly, the central bank which is an agent of the government fulfills its interest by having healthy citizens. So there probably wouldn't be usury.

Instead, earnings from the citizen would be garnished if they had debt.