that is a good point

Part of the problem with a welfare system is that it is discriminatory if not everybody is qualified. This discrimination has ill social effects in several ways, and of course, is unfair and always lets deserving people through the cracks. I understand, and in principle agree, with AK47, that nobody should be on welfare for several economic reasons. However, if there is to be welfare, it is infinitely fairer if it is not limited but provided to all. It would also work a very long way to cut bureaucracy, corruption within the programs, and the vague list of things that are charged under "welfare fraud" (and which have historically been used to split and jail polygamist families) - which are a reason why the system is more expensive than it should be.

So yes, while I would see "no welfare" as the superior outcome, I would also see "equal to all welfare" as superior to what there is now.

[Also, as Dissident will explain you, I am also in favor of a "food vouchers" system that everyone would receive. But this is a different specific policy, so don't get confused.]