Posted on 09/16/2015 8:24:46 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
It's been a while since I've written about the idea of a universal basic income. So I figure an update is in order.
The typical UBI proposal you see picks a certain dollar amount and then declares that it should go equally to all adults. I disagree with this in two ways. First, I think that children should also receive a basic income (paid to their parents). Second, I think that UBI payments should vary based on age.
Neither of these additions negates the chief administrative advantages of the UBI because they don't introduce means-testing. It's trivially easy to vary payments based on age given that government databases already know everyone's date of birth.
So what I have in mind looks something like this:
The dollar values are not that important here. They could go up or down depending on what we find out about the effect of the UBI and to keep up with overall national income growth over time. The focus of my post here is the age-based pattern. I think we should divide people into three basic groups: 1) children, 2) adults, 3) elderly.
Children
Children will receive a specific grant that is less than adults and elderly people get. Here, I give children ages 0-5 somewhat more than children ages 6-17. This is because younger children are more expensive than older children on account of child care needs and such.
Adults
Young adults ages 18-24 will receive a pretty substantial grant. Here it's $8,000. Adults between these ages are generally in a transitional stage where they are working towards becoming permanently attached to the labor force in a decent job. Some are in college and can use the grant for living expenses or other costs. Others are not in college and can use the grant to help them make it through low-earning apprenticeships or low-earning entry-level positions where they are gaining experience, skills, and knowledge.
It's also worth noting here that these are the ages at which an enormous amount of violent crime occurs in this country, largely by men who are poor and have employment difficulties. It's entirely possible that filling this gap with income would cool this down a bit.
Starting at age 25, I phase out the UBI by $100 per year. So by age 64, it is down to $4,000. I do this because we know earnings increase over the lifecycle, and so this would help smooth that out and reduce inequality. I also think it might help to encourage labor mobility somewhat more than paying an equal amount across all ages.
Elderly
The elderly will receive the highest basic income grant, serving as the minimum old-age pension.
Other Benefits
As I've noted before, I do not see the UBI as totally replacing all other welfare incomes. You still need disability benefits, unemployment benefits, and probably even supplemental old-age benefits. You still need leave benefits for sickness and childbirth and such. But these benefits would work in concert with the UBI as top-offs.
So, for instance, the UBI provides a basic old-age pension of $12,000 per year and then Social Security might come in and provide an extra $1 to $18,000 per year based on an earnings record. I am not saying you have to provide the supplement to the old-age UBI this way, but I am saying you could and that you probably need to have a least some strategy in mind for how the $12,000 is going to be supplemented (even individual retirement accounts are constructed by policy).
Utter bovine scatology.
If the government provides money to people for being alive, the amounts will end up being astronomical so the politicians can buy votes.
The “land of opportunity” becomes the “land of disincentives” under this BS approach.
Income for doing what? And who pays for it?
That is so generous of Matt to use his own money to provide all humans a basic income.
Maybe they have "employment difficulties", and thus are poor, because they have a violent attitude?
My thoughts exactly….those, plus what extreme idiot nonsense...
Wow! What a great idea!
Maybe sum it up as: “To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability.”
I bet this has never, ever been tried anywhere before!
isn’t this called welfare/socialist security/SNAP/EBT, etc, etc. And, BTW, it should all be ended. Completely unconstitutional spending of other people’s money. Anyone who wants money, should go out and earn it. If you can’t, that is what private charities are for. Go to them, and they will discern whether you are a lazy parasite or honestly in need.
The government pays for it. :/
Should work fine, until they run out of other people’s money.
It’s a replacement of all the forms of welfare with an income. It’s brilliant, in a way. Why pay for all of those gov’t bureaucrats to administer all these different programs, determine eligibility, negotiate contracts, look for cheaters, etc.
Do away with it all. Everyone gets a minimum income. If you want more out of life, you go do more.
It also gets rid of the perverse incentives that keep people from working. Like where you earn one dollar too much and you lose your housing or healthcare. We should be encouraging people to work and be deploying our bureaucrats in useful positions in private industry.
We will always have some poor. This country is not going to eliminate all forms of support and see people scrounging on the street.
This cuts out the middleman. It’s an idea worth looking at.
“Maybe they have “employment difficulties”, and thus are poor, because they have a violent attitude? “
—
Your paraphrasing is perfection.
.
I didn’t realize we had found life on another planet.
The new labor leader in England is for increasing welfare payments which they call benefits. See the tv show here and the British version of “Shameless” for how good the benefits are.
First, I think that children should also receive a basic income (paid to their parents).
Let the breeding begin.
Oh, and the author doesn’t understand “economies of scale”.
That would just about complete the liberal quest for herds of useless moochers, kept and fed in government feed lots like human cattle, to be brought out on election days to keep their masters in office.
Wow! What a great idea!
Maybe sum it up as: “To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability.”
I bet this has never, ever been tried anywhere before!
*********************************************************************
And they can just tax the rich to pay for it!
I’ve seen this advocated by Charles Murray, a libertarian sort of guy, believe it or not. The idea being to replace the bloated “welfare system”, that is, ALL of it, with a basic income. Overall it would be cheaper than what we have now, and should have some interesting (good) side effects. Of course the law of unintended consequences would rear its ugly head somewhere, but its not that crazy of an idea.
my family of 6 would get $30,000 a year :0
Something makes me think this would bankrupt us.
And who pays for it?
Why do you hate children?
</progressive silliness>
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.