[ranprieur]

This is better than nothing, but the big advantage of the UBI is that there is no bureaucracy deciding who gets it and doesn't get it. If there are any conditions on the income, then there's a constant danger that the program will become another tool of control.

[bombcar]

If you have a requirement that the UBI be for citizens only, or for residents only, you've already introduced bureaucracy.

(Amusingly enough the earned income credit is NOT GMI but it kind of almost is in some cases ...)

[codinghorror]

The EIC connection is covered in the history pages, which are fascinating in my opinion: https://rgmii.org/history-of-gmi/

As for a "does this person actually live in this area" criteria, I have a hard time seeing that single thing alone as "bureaucracy" -- it's quite common.

[dragonwriter]

The EITC was inspired by advocacy for a Negative Income Tax (which is generally isomorphic to UBI funded by income taxes, despite coming from the opposite side of the political spectrum.) But the designers couldn't avoid giving in to all the same problems with means-tested welfare that both UBI and NIT seek to eliminate, except or the separate eligibility bureaucracy, which integrating it into the income tax system avoided.

Of course, a GMI also differs from a UBI/NIT because that term generally refers to means-tested welfare with a sharp (usually 1:1 but not >1:1, which sometimes happens with means-tested welfare programs in aggregate in some ranges) cliff at starting at $0 in outside income up to the level of the minimum guarantee, whereas UBI/NIT benefits have a (usually much) <1:1 clawback via the tax system.

[dragonwriter]

As a contrast to means-tested welfare the U in UBI (whether “Universal” or “Unconditional”) generally is refers to the absence of means- and behavior-testing, it generally does not actually mean that there is no defined scope of eligibility (usually citizens or legal residents of a particular polity, possibly also with an age floor.)

[codinghorror]

with GMI the conditions are very simple math: what percent of the poverty line are you within?

I agree that adding a lot of conditions is part of the problem, but "help those who most need it first" seems like a very logical primary (and perhaps only) condition.

[wang_li]

Feb 1: receive monthly UBI payment Feb 2: spend all of it on strippers/drugs/alcohol/twinkies/etc. Feb 3: I'm hungry.

Unless you are prepared to let the idiots starve to death, UBI will never work.

[ryanmcbride]

I also like getting angry at situations I made up in my head

[hmry]

Feb 1: receive monthly paycheck Feb 2: spend all of it on strippers/drugs/alcohol/twinkies/etc. Feb 3: I'm hungry.

Unless you are prepared to let the wagies starve to death, wages will never work.

Or to put it in less sarcastic terms: Why would UBI payments be more likely to be squandered than any other monthly payments? Especially by people who can't afford food without it. Are there any studies that show such behavior?

[cwillu]

Yes yes, your 30 word dismissal completely obliterates all contrary evidence.