Should UBI Replace all Welfare Systems?

[squatz1]

This is going to be a long one, and I want people to be involved with this issue so I can hear all sides of the argument.

In the recent years, there has been a push from the right and the left to introduce a Universal Basic Income (UBI) -- which in short, is a set amount of income (pegged to inflation) which is provided to you if you're a US citizen. This money is given to you with no strings attached. I'm going to use an example and say that every American is given $10,000 a year regardless of the income that they have their marital status, and so on.

This in and so of itself removes the cliff dive which is apart of the welfare system we have now. As the welfare system, we have now may give a large number of benefits to someone who makes under $35,000 -- but won't give a dime to someone who is married and makes $36,000 a year. This practically means that the current system does not incentivize growth, it incentivizes you to stay under the imposed income (and other barriers) to get your benefits.

This new UBI system would give you money either way and then you'd be allowed to go work as hard as you want or as little as you want. I think (alongside some economists) that this is going to spur growth as it incentivizes people to go ahead and work hard to continue to succeed as they aren't held down by welfare limits.

I also want to say that with this system, some conservatives and libertarians think that the entire welfare system should be removed -- which includes, Medicare, Medicaid, and then the various federal and state programs which go alongside with it. To them (which I agree with), this plan is a substitute for every single other program that is currently present in the US relating to welfare. I'm not going to go into detail about what the left thinks the right thing to do with UBI is, but I do think they want to remove some programs and then add this on to the current welfare system -- but I think some of the liberal-leaning people who post here can chime in with that side of things.

I do want to stress that I don't know if $10,000 per year is the right number, it may be different based on research. I was JUST using an example.

I do think that UBI can work as a way to remove the hundreds of state and federal programs which aren't necessary when the benefits can come from one central source -- which only has to vet if you're a US citizen or not -- This is a way to remove the massive bureaucracy, and then introduce a program which will have the same effect to the people who need welfare.

[1714006045]

1714006045

[GlumMasterpiece]

This is going to be a long one, and I want people to be involved with this issue so I can hear all sides of the argument.

In the recent years, there has been a push from the right and the left to introduce a Universal Basic Income (UBI) -- which in short, is a set amount of income (pegged to inflation) which is provided to you if you're a US citizen. This money is given to you with no strings attached. I'm going to use an example and say that every American is given $10,000 a year regardless of the income that they have their marital status, and so on.

This in and so of itself removes the cliff dive which is apart of the welfare system we have now. As the welfare system, we have now may give a large number of benefits to someone who makes under $35,000 -- but won't give a dime to someone who is married and makes $36,000 a year. This practically means that the current system does not incentivize growth, it incentivizes you to stay under the imposed income (and other barriers) to get your benefits.

This new UBI system would give you money either way and then you'd be allowed to go work as hard as you want or as little as you want. I think (alongside some economists) that this is going to spur growth as it incentivizes people to go ahead and work hard to continue to succeed as they aren't held down by welfare limits.

I also want to say that with this system, some conservatives and libertarians think that the entire welfare system should be removed -- which includes, Medicare, Medicaid, and then the various federal and state programs which go alongside with it. To them (which I agree with), this plan is a substitute for every single other program that is currently present in the US relating to welfare. I'm not going to go into detail about what the left thinks the right thing to do with UBI is, but I do think they want to remove some programs and then add this on to the current welfare system -- but I think some of the liberal-leaning people who post here can chime in with that side of things.

I do want to stress that I don't know if $10,000 per year is the right number, it may be different based on research. I was JUST using an example.

I do think that UBI can work as a way to remove the hundreds of state and federal programs which aren't necessary when the benefits can come from one central source -- which only has to vet if you're a US citizen or not -- This is a way to remove the massive bureaucracy, and then introduce a program which will have the same effect to the people who need welfare.

I am fascinated by UBI. I think it is becoming necessary, as technology is taking over so many jobs. Robots and computers are producing products and groceries now. I never heard your argument before though. It truly can be a negative factor when people realize if they make $1000 more they'll lose way more in benefits. It seems like a no brainer that it's better to "stay down" sometimes. I think that when people have the basics they need for life, they will spend less time doing jobs that they don't like. We'll have more creativity and more people doing what they want to do. This will make society more productive as a whole.

[squatz1]

Before I respond to you Glum, I do want to let you know that it is kind of frowned upon to quote an entire post when you're responding to me -- all it creates is more of an annoyance when people are reading through responses. I know you're new to the forum, so this is just for next time and so you don't bother anyone!

But onto the topic here

It seems like a no brainer that it's better to "stay down" sometimes.

This is exactly what the current welfare system does, it makes people stay below some limits -- sometimes these limits are income related, but they are sometimes based on marital status and so on. -- in order to retain their valuable benefits. This sort of system, in my opinion, is un-American.

This will make society more productive as a whole.

Exactly. I think that these limits do nothing but make people double think working hard if you remove these limits and just give EVERYONE benefits -- then you're going to enter a world which is more productive as they have the reason to be more productive. As they're not going to lose out if they attempt to progress.

[Spendulus]

....if you remove these limits and just give EVERYONE benefits -- then you're going to enter a world which is more productive as they have the reason to be more productive. As they're not going to lose out if they attempt to progress.

This is incompatible with lax or unrestricted immigration of course. I know you restricted it to US citizens, just saying.

But a fundamental rule of government is that no programs are allowed to be considered which are not capable of supporting graft, corruption and political favoritism.

[theymos]

In an ideal world, there would be no welfare whatsoever. However, in the US I do think that UBI is a more reasonable path forward than continuing the current welfare system. Currently the US has probably thousands of different welfare programs, each with tons of overhead. Better to just mail everyone a check. It also significantly improves incentives, for example fixing the issue you mentioned of people getting trapped in welfare. According to Charles Murray's In Our Hands, $13k/year would be cheaper than the existing welfare system. Here's an interview with Murray.

However, I only consider it acceptable if it replaces all other welfare, including heath-care-related welfare, and I suspect that this will never be politically possible. I'd also like it to result in an elimination of all work-related regulations such as minimum wage, since with UBI there should be no excuse that people are being forced to work and therefore the government needs to protect them.

[Quickseller]

Universal basic income, along with other welfare systems, create disincentives to work and otherwise generate income. As such, it would be a very bad thing if UBI, in any form were enacted.

I would much rather see the various welfare programs be eliminated and/or reformed over time then see some kind of UBI system be enacted that would likely only grow and expand over time.


The only instance in which I would support UBI in any form would be in places like AK where government income far exceeds expenditures, and the government can pay their citizens some amount every year from the income their assets generates. 

[squatz1]

This is incompatible with lax or unrestricted immigration of course. I know you restricted it to US citizens, just saying.

Of course. I may have used the wrong wording when I said, then we enter a world of more production -- I meant this as in only talking about the United States.

But a fundamental rule of government is that no programs are allowed to be considered which are not capable of supporting graft, corruption and political favoritism.

This is one of the main reasons that I think UBI is necessary, I beleive that the current welfare programs ARE capable of supporting graft, corruption, AND political favoritism. UBI is a system which is just mailing out checks to American citizens, nothing more and nothing less.

However, I only consider it acceptable if it replaces all other welfare, including heath-care-related welfare, and I suspect that this will never be politically possible. I'd also like it to result in an elimination of all work-related regulations such as minimum wage, since with UBI there should be no excuse that people are being forced to work and therefore the government needs to protect them.

I may not have listed out all of the programs that I wanted to be removed, but I was pointing the finger at all welfare related programs -- some even say that Social Security should be replaced as well. I tend to agree with that personally. I've never seen any research relating to work-related regulation (such as min wage) but I do think that is an interesting point and I'm probably going to research it further.

I'll also address the political possibility of this. I know that if something like this was ever enacted, not all other welfare systems would be removed -- there would be no way that a conservative vision like this would get through both chambers of congress and signed by the president unscathed by moderates or dems. So, I don't think I would ever support another version of UBI - I fully agree with you that it's only acceptable if ALL other welfare programs are removed.

I would much rather see the various welfare programs be eliminated and/or reformed over time then see some kind of UBI system be enacted that would likely only grow and expand over time.

This type of goal faces a larger issue of political impossibility, while I may support something like this as well -- I do think that UBI is a much better system than the thousands of welfare systems with a wasteful amount of staff and money being used on this staff and other resources.

The only instance in which I would support UBI in any form would be in places like AK where government income far exceeds expenditures, and the government can pay their citizens some amount every year from the income their assets generates.

As theymos quoted before, 13,000 per year would be cheaper than all of the current welfare systems which are present in the United States. So it's not like we're going to be digging further into debt.

[GlumMasterpiece]

Before I respond to you Glum, I do want to let you know that it is kind of frowned upon to quote an entire post when you're responding to me -- all it creates is more of an annoyance when people are reading through responses. I know you're new to the forum, so this is just for next time and so you don't bother anyone!

Thanks for pointing that out. Nobody had ever mentioned that to me before. I'll try to be better at it.

Exactly. I think that these limits do nothing but make people double think working hard if you remove these limits and just give EVERYONE benefits -- then you're going to enter a world which is more productive as they have the reason to be more productive. As they're not going to lose out if they attempt to progress.

I just realized another way that we could be more productive. If you give everyone benefits, like you say, then you wouldn't need to worry about who deserves them or not. You could actually eliminate a huge amount of people who work for the government to determine who deserves help and who doesn't. This would free up a lot of people from pointless work. It would also free up a lot of resources that went into that.

As theymos quoted before, 13,000 per year would be cheaper than all of the current welfare systems which are present in the United States. So it's not like we're going to be digging further into debt.

I would like to point out that the US is constantly digging itself further into debt. IT would be more accurate to say, "It's not like we're going to be digging further into debt any more quickly."

[Spendulus]

....
I would like to point out that the US is constantly digging itself further into debt. IT would be more accurate to say, "It's not like we're going to be digging further into debt any more quickly."

I would like to point out that the freeloaders are constantly looking for more ways to get free stuff. It would be more accurate to say "It's not like the $10,000 of free money a year is the end, it's only the beginning!"

[Steamtyme]

I think UBI would go along way in replacing the welfare system in any country. The amount of waste the bureaucracy that multiple levels of multiple organisations bring to the current system does significantly more harm than good. One benefit I see for individuals in the current system is removing the stigma behind receiving/applying for benefits; as everyone would be receiving this.
Beyond that the UBI provides opportunity if you know you have a certain amount coming to you regardless with no stalled wait period or chance of denial, you can take risks.

• You can accept that new position without the fear it may not work out
• You can make plans for upgrading in post-secondary
• Maybe you know feel you have more disposable income to inject back into the economy
• Start-up a business, knowing you have something backing you for a while

However, I only consider it acceptable if it replaces all other welfare, including heath-care-related welfare, and I suspect that this will never be politically possible. I'd also like it to result in an elimination of all work-related regulations such as minimum wage, since with UBI there should be no excuse that people are being forced to work and therefore the government needs to protect them.

The problem is in finding the right amount. UBI is designed to be a system that will supplement your earnings, not as something to make a career of. It essentially should remove the situations where someone is choosing between the necessities of life at any given time. So I don't feel eliminating a safety net regulation such as minimum wage would benefit the system as a whole; because the UBI amount would likely be relying on a national average of minimum wages.

In regards to healthcare, I'm not even sure what it would cost me to show up to emerg with a broken leg, or to have a special operation. I'm glad I don't have to think about that, it's a perk of where I was born. I understand that it's different in the U.S, and that insurance costs can also be fairly arbitrary. So if UBI were to replace all health care related social assistance, I would expect the average cost of insurance be factored into this. Not just the average cost of the currently insured, but also those that currently chose other necessities over insurance.

Not being well versed on tax breaks or loopholes, there may also be several of those programs that could be lumped into the trash can if UBI were launched.

Regardless of your view on UBI or what you want it to achieve, I feel we are a long way out. The biggest problems are that there needs to be some longterm trials that make it to the end. They need to be held in an unbiased manner to determine the effectiveness of the program. Thanks to changing of governments and them usually trying to "salt the earth" of their predecessors this is becoming difficult. That is largely due to the fact that many people do not understand what UBI is, and look at it like it's expanding welfare.

[GlumMasterpiece]

I think UBI would go along way in replacing the welfare system in any country. The amount of waste the bureaucracy that multiple levels of multiple organisations bring to the current system does significantly more harm than good. One benefit I see for individuals in the current system is removing the stigma behind receiving/applying for benefits; as everyone would be receiving this.
Beyond that the UBI provides opportunity if you know you have a certain amount coming to you regardless with no stalled wait period or chance of denial, you can take risks.

• You can accept that new position without the fear it may not work out
• You can make plans for upgrading in post-secondary
• Maybe you know feel you have more disposable income to inject back into the economy
• Start-up a business, knowing you have something backing you for a while

I like that you broke down some of the options. Hadn't even thought about how it would be much easier to go back to school. You talk about trying a new position. I think that the key is that people won't be afraid to quit. I really think that we need more people quitting. So many people stay at jobs they don't like because they are afraid that they won't find another job and they'll end up with no money. UBI would help minimize that fear. People doing jobs they don't like greatly reduces our productivity as a society. They'll always try to do the bare minimum.

However, I only consider it acceptable if it replaces all other welfare, including heath-care-related welfare, and I suspect that this will never be politically possible. I'd also like it to result in an elimination of all work-related regulations such as minimum wage, since with UBI there should be no excuse that people are being forced to work and therefore the government needs to protect them.

What about people with disabilities, for example? Wouldn't that be considered welfare? I mean, what about people who literally can't make more money themselves? I feel like healthcare is a separate issue. $10,000 a year is not going to cover your healthcare if you go to the hospital a couple times.

[squatz1]

"It's not like we're going to be digging further into debt any more quickly."

This is true, I was just stating that UBI and the current welfare bureaucracy machine would be equal in costs. It's also a given that the payments of UBI don't increase (beyond inflation) -- if this were to occur by some politicians who increase the 13,000 to a different number (though this is the same risk which is present with all welfare programs, you can't stop politicians from increasing the benefits to please / sway some section of voters)

So I don't feel eliminating a safety net regulation such as minimum wage would benefit the system as a whole; because the UBI amount would likely be relying on a national average of minimum wages.

I don't know if I can agree with this. I do know that Theymos was trying to get at the fact that if everyone is now getting government assistance (UBI) then maybe minimum wage hikes shouldn't be so prevalent across the nation. Maybe we should stick with the national minimum wage (which is a lot lower then some states -- in the US of course) rather then trying to hike the minimum wage.

Some people may think that minimum wage hikes help the economy -- but they don't, they screw small businesses the hardest and all that ends up happening is bussineses are really only left with three options (see this article as well - https://www.businessinsider.com/minimum-wage-leads-to-job-losses-2017-3?IR=T)

• Cut margins of your business (this may be possible for some, but not all businesses may have this option)
• Raise prices (also, mostly impossible for businesses in a culture which is VERY price sensitive)
• Reducing employees. (this is the most possible one companies may further look into robots / automated machines to remove the lowest skilled labor)

So if UBI were to replace all health care related social assistance, I would expect the average cost of insurance be factored into this. Not just the average cost of the currently insured, but also those that currently chose other necessities over insurance.

That's something which is a really tough issue to dive into, I'm going to admit I would like to research the issue before I comment on healthcare at all. I'll make another comment in the thread relating to UBI and healthcare at some point. Just wanted you to know I wasn't avoiding the question.

What about people with disabilities, for example? Wouldn't that be considered welfare? I mean, what about people who literally can't make more money themselves? I feel like healthcare is a separate issue. $10,000 a year is not going to cover your healthcare if you go to the hospital a couple times.

That's actually a really good question and I've never read anything relating to disabled people and UBI -- I'm going to read into that a little bit as well and post that part into the healthcare post I'm planning for this thread.

[eternalgloom]

Universal basic income, along with other welfare systems, create disincentives to work and otherwise generate income. As such, it would be a very bad thing if UBI, in any form were enacted.

The only instance in which I would support UBI in any form would be in places like AK where government income far exceeds expenditures, and the government can pay their citizens some amount every year from the income their assets generates.  

There's no question that it would create a slight disincentive to work, but I do not think that it would have an enormous effect on people's willingness to work.
Some basic income experiments have also shown this, but I'm careful not to over-generalize, since there have only been a limited number of experiments done.

https://qz.com/1205591/a-universal-basic-income-experiment-in-alaska-shows-employment-didnt-drop/

Now it can definitely be said that most experiments do not include the enormous tax burden that would accompany UBI.
Here's another point of view:

https://www.cis.org.au/app/uploads/2017/11/rr32-snapshot.pdf (UBI – Universal Basic Income is an Unbelievably Bad Idea)

I would much rather see the various welfare programs be eliminated and/or reformed over time then see some kind of UBI system be enacted that would likely only grow and expand over time.

Not really sure what you're implying here. I assume you mean that you think that welfare systems are currently run inefficiently? Or are you actually advocating completely removing all welfare systems?

[squatz1]

There's no question that it would create a slight disincentive to work, but I do not think that it would have an enormous effect on people's willingness to work.

I think that is ONLY true if the other welfare systems aren't removed alongside the addition of UBI. I would understand your point if the other welfare systems weren't removed as well. But in the current state of the welfare system, work is disincentivized as you aren't allowed to make more income then the set amount OR you will lose benefits.

That is the part that disincentivizes working, but it is a part of the current system which has a steep drop-off point for people who are trying to progress and grow. This isn't the case with UBI, as you're going to be getting your set amount of benefits and it doesn't matter if you a shit ton of money or you earn nothing.

Now it can definitely be said that most experiments do not include the enormous tax burden that would accompany UBI.

I've seen report after report that says that if all other welfare programs (including welfare ones are removed) the UBI system would cost the same amount as the current welfare system. So an enormous tax burden wouldn't be coming alongside this addition of UBI.

[Steamtyme]

I don't know if I can agree with this. I do know that Theymos was trying to get at the fact that if everyone is now getting government assistance (UBI) then maybe minimum wage hikes shouldn't be so prevalent across the nation. Maybe we should stick with the national minimum wage (which is a lot lower then some states -- in the US of course) rather then trying to hike the minimum wage.

I can agree with that, I just didn't believe that scrapping minimum wage all together would be beneficial to the plan. There are a lot of factors at play with any monetary distribution like this; for instance do we provide the same UBI to an Alaska resident as you would someone in New York or Peurto Rico. These factors are significantly easier to approach in smaller countries, but should always be dealt with in a well thought out manner.

My country is no different, there are communities here that resemble a far off land where they pay 5-10X what I do for almost every daily use item. Due to that I would expect there to be some form of weighted calculation to take these things into account.

That's something which is a really tough issue to dive into, I'm going to admit I would like to research the issue before I comment on healthcare at all. I'll make another comment in the thread relating to UBI and healthcare at some point. Just wanted you to know I wasn't avoiding the question.

No worries, I really only bring these points up to stimulate the mind on the subject. I mean no disrespect when I say that it shows how despite having a well reasoned opinion about the subject there are always aspects that have been overlooked. I don't envy the person who takes on the idea and tries to draft the initial launches of these programs; if they mean to launch them with the serious intent of success.

I did cut the portion in regards to small business, but I am no stranger to those factors; having successfully run a failed retail outlet myself. That was a great example of what a knee jerk reaction causes if you don't think of the secondary and tertiary impacts of legislation and regulation.

[squatz1]

There are a lot of factors at play with any monetary distribution like this; for instance do we provide the same UBI to an Alaska resident as you would someone in New York or Peurto Rico. These factors are significantly easier to approach in smaller countries, but should always be dealt with in a well thought out manner.

Of course, there are a lot of things that must go into consideration, I don't know on the exact cost of living differences (based on studies) but I think that this would have to be much more fleshed out then giving everyone 13,000 a year and calling it a day. I do think there must be cost of living differences but on average what this SHOULD account for $13,000 for each American citizen -- this is what it would average out to with the differences in cost of living.

I did cut the portion in regards to small business, but I am no stranger to those factors; having successfully run a failed retail outlet myself. That was a great example of what a knee jerk reaction causes if you don't think of the secondary and tertiary impacts of legislation and regulation.

I have family which operates small businesses who rely on the low-skilled labor and have seen the hardships they've had to endure to ensure that they can keep their clients, maintain their profits, and tries to ensure that their businesses run smoothly while having to work with fewer employees. It's tough to see, and I don't think min wage ends up helping anyone when employment is being cut due to mandatory wage increases.

But back onto the topic, I do have good intentions with opening up the conversation to people on here-- and I really do enjoy seeing all of the differing opinions which are present on the topic.

I'll try to get back with a little write-up on healthcare and stuff along those lines, thanks all for being apart of this conversation.

[eternalgloom]

There's no question that it would create a slight disincentive to work, but I do not think that it would have an enormous effect on people's willingness to work.

I think that is ONLY true if the other welfare systems aren't removed alongside the addition of UBI. I would understand your point if the other welfare systems weren't removed as well. But in the current state of the welfare system, work is disincentivized as you aren't allowed to make more income then the set amount OR you will lose benefits.

That is the part that disincentivizes working, but it is a part of the current system which has a steep drop-off point for people who are trying to progress and grow. This isn't the case with UBI, as you're going to be getting your set amount of benefits and it doesn't matter if you a shit ton of money or you earn nothing.

Now it can definitely be said that most experiments do not include the enormous tax burden that would accompany UBI.

I've seen report after report that says that if all other welfare programs (including welfare ones are removed) the UBI system would cost the same amount as the current welfare system. So an enormous tax burden wouldn't be coming alongside this addition of UBI.

I do agree with what you're saying, but when you are talking about welfare systems, do you also mean that healthcare would be included into that?
If that's the case, some people would be off far worse than under the current system, as they could not possibly pay their medical costs from the UBI they're receiving.

I'm passionately in favor of implementing UBI, I really think that current welfare systems (for unemployment) are severely flawed.

Lately I've also been more and more interested in seeing UBI implementations through some form of cryptocurrency.
Now, let me preface this by saying that I do not think these will magically solve poverty in the future, but they can grow to be viable additional income for people in third world countries.

It's pretty amazing to see how many such projects there already are. Currently there are at least 23 such projects. Source

[squatz1]

I do agree with what you're saying, but when you are talking about welfare systems, do you also mean that healthcare would be included into that?
If that's the case, some people would be off far worse than under the current system, as they could not possibly pay their medical costs from the UBI they're receiving.

This is the case with what I'm saying from my side here, some people may say that this isn't the right way to go about things but I feel it is so. I'm not advocating for removing welfare programs for those that are disabled from work -- but I don't think you should receive any other welfare if THIS is the way forward. It's also the only way to go forward while making this UBI system have a net zero on the governmental dollar.

[Flying Hellfish]

In an ideal world, there would be no welfare whatsoever. However, in the US I do think that UBI is a more reasonable path forward than continuing the current welfare system. Currently the US has probably thousands of different welfare programs, each with tons of overhead. Better to just mail everyone a check. It also significantly improves incentives, for example fixing the issue you mentioned of people getting trapped in welfare. According to Charles Murray's In Our Hands, $13k/year would be cheaper than the existing welfare system. Here's an interview with Murray.

However, I only consider it acceptable if it replaces all other welfare, including heath-care-related welfare, and I suspect that this will never be politically possible. I'd also like it to result in an elimination of all work-related regulations such as minimum wage, since with UBI there should be no excuse that people are being forced to work and therefore the government needs to protect them.

Is replacing the current social assistance programs with a wealth distribution plan really a good idea?  What I mean is currently welfare budget is reserved for "those" in need which is a pretty small percentage of People.  If we take the same budget (meaning the 13k threshold) and redistribute it to EVERYONE, folks who need the assistance will get much less.

I would love a "free" 13k, but I don't need it.  A family making 36k a year needs it more than I do, so why not talk about increasing the threshold for these programs.

Btw IMO it's not only welfare that's not keeping up and meeting the needs.  I see skilled blue collar people that could once but a home with those skills.  Now with the price of house's sky rocketing and those wages not corresponding don't allow a new young skilled person to have the hope of a buying a family home.

13k is such a small amount of money who could hope to live on that a year?  The poor will get poorer and the rich will get insignificantly richer.

I forgo my 13k per year so someone who needs it can have it.  The welfare system sucks, but redistributing it people that clearly don't need it seems counter productive to me!

[squatz1]

Is replacing the current social assistance programs with a wealth distribution plan really a good idea?  What I mean is currently welfare budget is reserved for "those" in need which is a pretty small percentage of People.  If we take the same budget (meaning the 13k threshold) and redistribute it to EVERYONE, folks who need the assistance will get much less.

Well, the thing is that the current system isn't working it's a bureaucratic mess which isn't (in my view) helping people lift out of the welfare program anyway. UBI is what is needed to bring some real change to the system -- and this reformed system is one which is going to spur growth.

To your entire response as a whole I'd support capping the program out at a certain point, but it shouldn't be a point where the benefits discourage people to work harder.

I'd propose a change where people don't get an income if they earn above a certain point, for an examples sake I'm going to say 250k (adjusted for cost of living in certain areas, so it is the right number in rural areas and in big cities where things are more expensive) I'm open to debate on pretty much anything on here, I'm throwing out these numbers for examples sake.

So the whole 13,000 a year could potentially increase if you remove millions of people from receiving that. But this should never be a substitute for working, and that's something that I want to stress.