4 ms·
A workable implementation will probably end up somewhere in between—many programs might continue to exist, but the number of people they support would decrease,
by Ankaios 11y ago
A workable implementation will probably end up somewhere in between—many programs might continue to exist, but the number of people they support would decrease, as would the level of support.
If the basic income was set somewhere near the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) for an individual, it would be ~ $1000 / month [1]. (This is just for a rough sense of scale. I don't actually think it's a good idea to specifically aim to match that number, but I suspect we shouldn't go much above it. That's a longer discussion, though.) That wouldn't completely cover Social Security for everyone—the average monthly retirement benefit is ~ $1300 [2]—but it would cover a large chunk. Further, the minimum eligibility level for Medicaid is 133 % of the FPL [3], so if we'd like to maintain our current standards, provision of a roughly FPL basic income won't obviate Medicaid for everyone. (Medicare's qualification criteria are primarily age based, so the number of eligible beneficiaries would be unchanged by the existence of the basic income.)
[1] http://aspe.hhs.gov/2015-poverty-guidelines http://aspe.hhs.gov/2015-poverty-guidelines
[2] https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfact/stat_snapshot/ https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfact/stat_snapshot/
[3] http://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid-chip-program-information/by-topics/eligibility/eligibility.html http://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid-chip-program-information/by...
- AnthonyMouse 11y agoSo give people a one-time option when the program is introduced to choose either social security or the basic income. And of course for anyone more than a few years from retirement age, the basic income will be the obvious choice because it begins paying immediately, so social security will de facto phase itself out over time. But then you can trivially sell it as "no changes to social security."
- Ankaios 11y agoThat would serve a somewhat different purpose than Social Security—a lower income throughout life rather than a higher income in retirement. Regardless, though, it seems like there should be relatively elegant options for achieving both objectives with one system if we want to. Perhaps just increase the basic income after some age. (That sets off some warning bells in my head, though—it could be a step toward complexity and means testing.)
- kbutler 11y ago$12,000/person/year * 320 million people is the size of the current U.S. federal budget.
- Ankaios 11y agoYep. That's roughly the upper limit of the range that I think would make sense for a nationwide basic income, and even that wouldn't fully cover Social Security or lift everyone out of Medicaid eligibility. (I don't think it would make sense to actually start that high—I would experiment with lower levels, and on more local scales, to try to understand the economic effects. Even so, I wouldn't be surprised if the maximum benefit to the full economy and to general well being occurs for a Federal component of a basic income near the FPL, though.)