The thrust of the (financial) problem is that all of those savings, the bureaucracy and the more efficient capital allocation, is completely eclipsed by the massive waste of paying UBI to everyone who doesn't need welfare. If 10% of households receive welfare, you're looking at a 10x increase in outlay (since you're now also paying the 90% who don't need welfare).
But to actually replace welfare, you'd need to pay enough to satisfy (almost) everyone, not just the average. This means you need to pay the 80th? 99th? percentile benefit to everyone, since UBI is a flat benefit and you've eliminated all means testing.
Assuming your 99th percentile outlay is 150% of the average, you now have to pay 1,500% of your original welfare budget in order to provide the same benefit to the 99th percentile welfare beneficiary (and 1% of people previously on welfare are still worse off). Even if somehow we could afford largess of that magnitude without spiraling into hyperinflation, it's unlikely that the efficiencies of individual capital allocation could overcome anywhere near the 1,400% premium of UBI.
> the bureaucracy and the more efficient capital allocation, is completely eclipsed by the massive waste of paying UBI to everyone who doesn't need welfare
I understand your idea. The crux here being neither of us are providing data, just rhetoric.
I'm not sure I understand. I'm using simple arithmetic to show that UBI can't replace welfare except at unfathomable expense, based on real welfare expense and GDP numbers. Do you disagree?
you dont present enough concrete values for the parameters to prove the point. eg:
What is the % improved (degraded) capital allocation?
What is the ratio of bureaucracy spend to money handed out?
What proportion of the nation is on welfare and what is the true amount of literal need (remember some people will be over paid on welfare too).
Also technically this is a Negative Income tax not UBI so it could actually be a sort of means tested against income. as pure example to illustrate the concept
Imagine >10k had a negative tax rate, everyone with income > 10k would receive money back, whereas presumably people some threshold above 10k would still net pay taxes on their total income tax return.
ultimately i'm not saying you're wrong, or that I'm right. But that neither of us has enough data to make a claim of fact beyond rhetoric.
But to actually replace welfare, you'd need to pay enough to satisfy (almost) everyone, not just the average. This means you need to pay the 80th? 99th? percentile benefit to everyone, since UBI is a flat benefit and you've eliminated all means testing.
Assuming your 99th percentile outlay is 150% of the average, you now have to pay 1,500% of your original welfare budget in order to provide the same benefit to the 99th percentile welfare beneficiary (and 1% of people previously on welfare are still worse off). Even if somehow we could afford largess of that magnitude without spiraling into hyperinflation, it's unlikely that the efficiencies of individual capital allocation could overcome anywhere near the 1,400% premium of UBI.