Text 1: Economist Tan argues that universal basic income (UBI) could eliminate poverty more efficiently than the current welfare system. Replacing dozens of overlapping programs with a single cash payment would reduce administrative overhead, eliminate work disincentives at program boundaries, and ensure no one falls through the cracks.
Text 2: Economist Volkov agrees that the existing welfare system is inefficient but doubts that UBI is the answer. Cash payments alone, he argues, cannot replace targeted services like Medicaid, housing vouchers, or job training, which address specific needs that money does not directly solve. The cost of providing UBI on top of these services would be politically and economically unsustainable.
Both authors would most likely agree that
- A
no one in the United States lives in poverty.
- B
cash payments can replace all targeted services.
- C
UBI is clearly the best policy.
- Dcheck_circle
the current U.S. welfare system has significant inefficiencies.
Explanation
Both authors describe the welfare system as inefficient; they disagree on UBI as solution. A is shared. B and C reflect only Tan; D contradicts both.