Keeping the UBI metric as it is for now

 After thinking about the potential problems with my UBI metric, I've decided I'm keeping it exactly as I am right now. 

The fact is, all five elements outlined in my previous metric are all important, and even changing the weighting would likely change the metric for the worst. No metric is perfect, but any changes likely would not be positive.

When looking at whether something is a true UBI, that matters. Even if it's an NIT, NITs add in bureaucracy and political vulnerabilities that make them less sustainable long term, as future administrations move in to undermine them, and flaws pile up over time. And if I did change the weighting slightly, what would it add, 2-4 points to the total score? That might change the grade a little bit, but not an insane amount.

I mean, UBI should keep people out of poverty, and my score is directly in proportion with its ability to do that. If your UBI isn't low enough, or lacks a child benefit, those are flaws that should be brought up.

I certainly don't favor UBIs that are regressive on the poor, and my own plan has the metric that I try to ensure the poor are at least as well off, or better off than they are now. 

If your UBI numbers suck, they suck. What do you want me to do? Give you a pass because you didn't think through the numbers?

And of course, being an indepentarian, I want a UBI to free people from coerced participation in society, particularly the labor market.

I gave my plan a near perfect score, only taking points off in acknowledging my own uncertainty and weakness in my own numbers. If anything I gave other plans the benefit of the doubt their plans would work for the most part.Yet everyone else has flaws. The NIT plans were NITs, had regressive looking mechanisms relative to my own, and if they didn't discuss the numbers, well, that's their fault. Yang's plan was rife with issues, many of which get him dunked on by progressives. And Scott Santens' plan, well, as much as I respect the dude, he went the georgist route with his UBI and paid the price for it in my grading metric, since I tend to have a fundamental ideological incompatibility with that approach to UBI. So, that said, all of these issues got the criticism that they deserved, and it's mostly not my metric that's the problem, it's the fact that they approach UBI in a sub optimal way. The georgist section of Scott's plan does make me cool on it. Yang's plan does have issues. NITs do have issues too. There's no avoiding that. And while sometimes I wonder if I'm too harsh, maybe I wasn't. After all, the worst of the plans could have easily been rectified had they fixed their funding numbers a bit. And the best of the plans other than mine got in the B-A- range. That's something. And the D scoring ones could have been Cs had they worked on their numbers. And even Bs if they fixed what i considered to be obvious flaws. I mean it's not like I didn't explain exactly what was wrong with them and explain why I thought my own plan, which I gave a 97/100 to, was better. 

That said, yeah, my metric is fine. I just had criticisms and disagreements with other UBI plans that deserved to be criticized.