3 ms·
It works. Why wouldn't it? In the US, we spend roughly 4-10k* per capita in welfare, housing and transfer payments. That means we already spend enough to instea
by wallace_f 9y ago
It works. Why wouldn't it? In the US, we spend roughly 4-10k* per capita in welfare, housing and transfer payments. That means we already spend enough to instead give 4-10k/person/year in BI.
In NY, homeless people cost the city over $40,000 per person! And there isn't even much to show for it!
Wars on and Poverty and Drugs have spent billions, also without improving living conditions of the most vulnerable economic group!
At what point can we say enough is enough?
And here is some proof for you: Experiments in 'just give people money or housing' have proven more successful than traditional social services(1,2)!
BI is more fair, more efficient and has an added benefit of removong incentives for crime or other deviant behavior.
Besides, it is more morally just. We are all here in this world where most of the wealth was created before we were even born. Everyone is entitled to at least a small portion of it.
*Depending on which programs you include in this category, namely SS, medi- caid and care.
www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/09/22/552850245/episode-796-the-basic-income-experiment
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2015/04/17/the-surprisingly-simple-way-utah-solved-chronic-homelessness-and-saved-millions/?sw_bypass=true&utm_term=.821d65a66fb2 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2015/04...
- phkahler 9y agoBI is generally talked about as giving money to everyone, not just those in need. You're talking about something different that has not actually been tried anywhere. A lot of things would change if you gave BI to everyone. A lot of things.
- wallace_f 9y agoBasic Income Experiment is in the title of the first link, so no, what I said is not something entirely different that has never been tried. Giving it to everyone elsE besides those in need would just be like a progressive tax break. If your concern is it will disincentivize work: it is true there will be some drop in the labor participation rate. However, that drop is unappreciably small in comparison to the amount of corruption and number of total jobs in the economy that do not add any value to society. If your concern is that "people won't produce things we need," you should be focused on bankers, healthcare lobbyists and insurance companies, a significant part of corporate America, academia, government, teacher's unions(see: 1), etc. In fact, removing the above corruption in the labor market and replacing with BI may actually increase incentive to work by opening up opportunities for innovation, and creating good faith in governance within the labor market. 1-https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VObBmEBSTXU https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VObBmEBSTXU