Means testing has been shown to cost significantly more. That’s why I’m a fan of universal programs and not welfare programs (like the one in this study).

I would argue someone making six figures getting 10% more will have a big impact still. Give everyone the benefit, even billionaires. Using your argument, the billionaire won’t care about getting an extra $1,000 - that’s nothing to them. But no one feels “cheated” because you arbitrarily put the limit, and you know no one else is cheating the system because there is no system to cheat!

Paying for universal programs would require changing our tax structure, which I’m also supportive of.

Sibeth Kane has entered the chat.

“Why is there a waste management facility directly behind a playground? Sometimes there are kids there!!!”

Whenever I see headlines like this I read “technological advancement is bad cause I don’t understand it”.

Roadways that charge your vehicle as you drive on them would be even cooler

That’s why there are lots of regulations for things impacting life safety. With a nuclear power plant, you mitigate the disaster potential by having so many more people involved in the design and inspection processes.

The risk of an electrician installing faulty wiring in your home could be mitigated by having a third party inspector review the work. Now do that 1000x over and your risk of “politicians are paid off” is negligible.