3 ms·

As a libertarian, basic income seemed quite against everything initially. However, if basic income were to completely replace the current entitlement system and

As a libertarian, basic income seemed quite against everything initially. However, if basic income were to completely replace the current entitlement system and all it's defects, I would absolutely support it. It would cost considerably less and thus higher taxation would be less of a concern (as a way to stifle more money from the rich to the poor).

ScottBurson 11y ago
I like the basic income idea, but from what I've read it would cost considerably more than our current entitlement system, if it provided anything like the same level of benefits. The big reason, as I understand, is the number of young, low-income men who currently receive no support at all, but would under a basic income system. (Many low-income young women, by contrast, are already eligible for support, as they have children.) Do you still like the idea if it's more expensive rather than less?
- TheHydroImpulse 11y ago
  As with anything, details matter. There are no single definition of what basic income would entail. For example, would it truly be unconditional, regardless of income? I doubt those who make $200,000/year want a basic income cheque. I think the difference would be in the efficiency and simplicity of such a system. Currently, the U.S. spends over a trillion dollars on state and federal welfare programs (spread across 126+ programs). However, the government spends it quite poorly and in many indirect ways. Giving them a cheque would certainly be better. You're right in that it could actually be more expensive. I'm not sure what my stand on the subject would be in that case. Even with my libertarian beliefs, (and there are good arguments that basic income is perfectly compatible with libertarianism) I have to keep in mind of the realities related to the surging amount of poverty and that it's unsustainable.
bryanlarsen 11y ago
The libertarian icon Milton Friedman was one the first to suggest a basic income scheme, although he called it a negative income tax.

ScottBurson 11y ago

I like the basic income idea, but from what I've read it would cost considerably more than our current entitlement system, if it provided anything like the same level of benefits. The big reason, as I understand, is the number of young, low-income men who currently receive no support at all, but would under a basic income system. (Many low-income young women, by contrast, are already eligible for support, as they have children.) Do you still like the idea if it's more expensive rather than less?

TheHydroImpulse 11y ago
As with anything, details matter. There are no single definition of what basic income would entail. For example, would it truly be unconditional, regardless of income? I doubt those who make $200,000/year want a basic income cheque. I think the difference would be in the efficiency and simplicity of such a system. Currently, the U.S. spends over a trillion dollars on state and federal welfare programs (spread across 126+ programs). However, the government spends it quite poorly and in many indirect ways. Giving them a cheque would certainly be better. You're right in that it could actually be more expensive. I'm not sure what my stand on the subject would be in that case. Even with my libertarian beliefs, (and there are good arguments that basic income is perfectly compatible with libertarianism) I have to keep in mind of the realities related to the surging amount of poverty and that it's unsustainable.

bryanlarsen 11y ago

The libertarian icon Milton Friedman was one the first to suggest a basic income scheme, although he called it a negative income tax.