largely because it cannot actually be funded

and also the fact that it takes from the poorest

to spread amongst those who don't need it

it also doesn't target need

single people should not be entitled to the same amount as a family

and the disabled need more than those who aren't disabled

targeting is means-testing

because you are testing what they need

What you're essentially saying then it is inevitable that vulnerable people will die and suffer

And that's a price worth paying to ensure people who don't need support don't get it

Under UBI yes

vulnerable people will die and suffer under UBI

they're dying now

Yep

and in higher numbers

You can't say that

UBI hasn't been implemented

well i could cite test cases, but that wouldn't be fair

UBI wouldn't be cut off

Welfare can be

And is excessively

I don't argue for a welfare system where it can be

Then you probably ought to just end at "The current welfare system is flawed and harms the people it's supposed to protect"

Dunno why I'd need to say that when I can also point out UBI would do the same

you have no proof it would do the same

like you said, it hasn't been tried

so all we can say with certainty is that the current system is flawed

I mean if you're proposing a system that would cut money from people then yeah I feel like I can say it would be worse

except it doesnt

But it would

it imposes extra taxes on the middle and top

Except those wouldn't work because taxes aren't just a lever with infinite money

yes, it's a system of diminishing returns

UBI of £130 a week for all adults would cost £350bn a year

£80bn can be recouped by scrapping the tax-free allowance

lol

raising taxes on the poorest

nice

Current welfare budget excluding housing benefit and social care, 200bn

so you're only 70bn short

see this is the problem with your system