4 ms·
The genius of the minimum guaranteed income, and the reason that it could possibly appeal to both liberals and libertarians is because in this case it does prec
by DavidAdams 13y ago
The genius of the minimum guaranteed income, and the reason that it could possibly appeal to both liberals and libertarians is because in this case it does precisely the opposite of what you're afraid of: the government doesn't pick anything.
They give it to everybody. If you think that the government does a poor job of allocating the absolutely colossal amounts of money currently spent by social programs, or you recognize that trying to "do a good job" and prevent fraud, and all the other social engineering requires a vast, wasteful bureaucracy, then this is an interesting option.
This is a program that eliminates extreme poverty, but requires almost no infrastructure. You'd only need to verify that recipients are citizens and that they file their taxes. Since you can abolish Social Security, a stripped down social security bureaucracy, which already prevents people who haven't paid into social security from receiving benefits, could take over that task.
It could allow one of the largest and most sweeping reductions in the size of government in our lifetimes.
And if you believe in freedom, but also want to live in a country where people don't have to beg for food, then this is your best bet. You trust people to make their own decisions about what benefits them and their family. You don't discourage work or enterprise.
I think it's a political long shot of epic proportions, but also a great idea.
- arobbins 13y agoThe linked article mentions cuts in other social welfare programs as one of the risks of a guaranteed basic income. Many who promote guaranteed basic income do not think it should replace our existing programs.
- rjbez17 13y agoIt should at a minimum get rid of unemployment and welfare. It just wouldn't make sense to keep them around.
- dragonwriter 13y ago> Many who promote guaranteed basic income do not think it should replace our existing programs. I have never seen anyone advocate for UBI who expressed any position other than support for using it to replace, at a minimum, means-tested poverty support programs, and generally they want it to replace many other targeted social benefit programs that currently provide services, direct subsidies for selected purchases of goods and services, or indirect subsidies through tax credits and deductions for purchases. The usual argument for UBI is that it eliminates the most of the administrative overhead and duplication of function in the multiple programs it would replace, as well as replacing the perverse incentives that occur with means-testing.
- nkoren 13y agoCan you cite any BI proponents who explicitly say that it shouldn't replace existing benefits programmes? Speaking for myself -- and every other BI activist I've ever read or heard of -- I certainly think that it should replace the vast majority of existing benefits, as well as minimum wage.
- ericd 13y agoAgreed, and it could effectively counter the increasing concentration of wealth that increasing automation in a pure capitalistic society would inevitably bring.
- angersock 13y agoIt is quite stabilizing. The fact is, our .gov is doing a pretty shitty job as far as social contracts go, and the incentives for playing nice only exist once you've bought into the thing wholesale and are doing quite well for yourself. Given the way we treat felons, the poor, and the ill I'm rather surprised things aren't boiling over sooner.
- dead_phish 13y agoGiven the way we treat the productive, the non-corporate, and the individual, I'm surprised things haven't boiled over already.