Best of all, the Vancouver study concluded that doing so actually reduces government spending.
Makes you wonder about the people dead set against this sort of thing
this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2023
207 points (96.8% liked)
AMUSING, INTERESTING, OUTRAGEOUS, or PROFOUND
2075 readers
101 users here now
This is a page for anything that's amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.
♦ ♦ ♦
RULES
❶ Each player gets six cards, except the player on the dealer's right, who gets seven.
❷ Posts, comments, and participants must be amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.
❸ This page uses Reverse Lemmy-Points™, or 'bad karma'. Please downvote all posts and comments.
❹ Posts, comments, and participants that are not amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound will be removed.
❺ This is a non-smoking page. If you must smoke, please click away and come back later.
❻ Don't be a dick.
Please also abide by the instance rules.
♦ ♦ ♦
Can't get enough? Visit my blog.
♦ ♦ ♦
Please consider donating to Lemmy and Lemmy.World.
$5 a month is all they ask — an absurdly low price for a Lemmyverse of news, education, entertainment, and silly memes.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Its not about cost effectiveness its about being punitive.
They've likely associated homelessness with drug use, and drug use with a moral failing. Or they just don't have any empathy at all and are ignorant of the benefits we all get from helping those in need.
Yes, but you see this policy isn't cruel enough to be implemented by the christian right
The only people against UBI are rich assholes and people who wish they were rich assholes.
Hey, I wish I was a rich asshole, and I'd love to see UBI.
Honestly, your comment is great on many levels. I bet you'll get rich one day.
Seems unlikely at my age, but I do take checks.
Cool, now make it happen for everyone with no questions asked. Then we cut out the overhead of seeing if you qualify and stop people from complaining about how it incentivises you to be lazy.
No level of effort will make you earn less than you did before, as can happen when you earn enough that you no longer qualify for the programs that let you take the first steps out of poverty. But it will still be cheaper for the government (and therefore the taxpayer) at the end of the day because we won't be wasting as many resources trying to heal people who are only sick because they were suffering extreme poverty, or are only addicts because it's the only way to make their practically hopeless living situation slightly more bearable, or are only unemployed because every job makes them earn too much to stay on SNAP benefits or Medicaid (US examples, I know, but I'm willing to bet similar Catch-22s exist near you).
"No questions asked" is brilliant.
The people who need aid most — any kind of alleged aid program — are not capable of navigating the proof and paperwork maze. That's not accidental, it's cost control. All aid programs should be as close to "no questions asked" as feasible.