Prevalence of basic activity difficulties or disability, persons aged 15–64, 2011 and 2012
Posted on 01/03/2017 8:19:22 AM PST by Signalman
Yes, that was Dr. Friedman’s proposal, and we do have the “negative income tax,” as he called it, Earned Income Tax Credit, basically a taxpayer cash handout.
The theory, in my opinion, is okay. Give each person or each household $XXX. Let them spend it how they choose. No other government “help,” period, so a zillion Federal, state, county, and local helpifying bureaucrats need to go find a real job.
Unfortunately, the obvious outcome is that as soon as children are starving in the street because the parents spent all their income on drugs or gambling or a trip to Thailand, the government “help” machine cranks up again, muscling out whatever aid private charities may attempt.
In the U.S. example, all the other “benefits” remained unchanged, and all those government employees remained on the payroll. For EITC recipients, it’s often more or less a wash, since their incomes may result in their not qualifying for other handouts.
I’m pretty sure USA gives about $2000 a month to about 20 million recipients.
I’m not up on the exact figures, but I suspect that for every $1 in welfare benefits you hand out we are spending at least $7 in bureaucrat salaries.
What’s different is the “no questions asked” aspect. No criteria beyond simple citizenship; no proving need, no demonstrating eligibility, no showing attempts at employment/recovery... you just get a check for $X/month. If you pay more than $X in taxes, it’s effectively a refund; if you pay less, it’s your entitlement to at least poverty-line sustenance, and what you do with it is your problem.
The biggest problem with implementing it here is precisely the “massive scale”: it eviscerates the huge bureaucracy of entitlements, replacing it with a simple funds transfer (direct deposit for most, checks for a few). Ain’t gonna happen without a vicious political fight, resulting in huge unemployment numbers.
Oddly, “guaranteed basic income” has its best chance under Trump as part of his “drain the swamp”, giving him a way to amputate most of the welfare infrastructure without cutting actual welfare payments (no way can he cut both at once).
Then $587 a month will quickly become equivalent to zero, causing the Finns to raise the number to $1500, which will soon become equivalent to zero, causing the Finns to ......
[repeat indefinitely]
I don’t know, either, but there’s no question that each “helping” worker gets a great deal more than each recipient household ... plus great health insurance benefits and a gold-plated pension.
There is a huge, well-off, higher-than-average-educated, time-on-their-hands constituency for ever more expensive and intrusive government. Many of them are probably decent people doing a good job at (computer programmer, file clerk, accounts-payable rep), but the agencies they work for shouldn’t even exist.
Prevalence of basic activity difficulties or disability, persons aged 15–64, 2011 and 2012
This is very different. A guaranteed income means everybody gets it. You don’t have to qualify for it and it never ends.
Given human nature, two things will happen. Fewer people will want to work and the amount of free money will quickly increase... And the country will go broke and or inflation will soar.
As Ben Franklin politely put it, there has to be discomfort in poverty, to reduce poverty.
This is very different. A guaranteed income means everybody gets it. You don’t have to qualify for it and it never ends.
Given human nature, two things will happen. Fewer people will want to work and the amount of free money will quickly increase... And the country will go broke and or inflation will soar.
As Ben Franklin politely put it, there has to be discomfort in poverty, to reduce poverty.
Exactly - it’s simply redefining “zero income”
The article does raise the issue of robots edging workers from the labor force.
Theoretically this will reach a point where universal incomes will be required to maintain social order.
It’s probably better than what we have. They get this regardless of other income; in our system, if you have other income, you lose your government check. Most people in that situation are not looking at full-time job opportunities, so allowing people to supplement with temporary, part-time, piece work might actually encourage more work. We also spend a hell of lot of money administering our welfare system; I’ve read that if you just cut everyone a basic standard check, and eliminated all the bureaucratic crap that currently goes into allegedly helping the poor. the check would be pretty large and still revenue neutral to the government.
Well, this could be interesting, it would be good to keep an eye on it. Finland is an interesting country. It’s cold, the people are very industrious, the education system (which doesn’t exactly follow the instructions of the U.S. educational establishment) is rated #1 in the world. It has a small population with few minority groups. The stated goal of this program is actually to simplify welfare. Definitely, the Finns should not follow the example of their Swedish neighbors by taking in hordes of Middle East Muslims, that would wreck any program like this. Hopefully, the Finns will continue to protect their sovereignty, as they did during WWII when they had to fight the Russians in two wars and the Germans in one war. Go Finns!
” The article does raise the issue of robots edging workers from the labor force.”
I’m highly skeptical of this. At the turn of last century around 80% of the people worked in farms. Then farm machinery replaced most of them so now around 4% work on farms.
Back then one could have had an equal fear of the “machine”, but most people, especially planners, lack the ability to foresee future developments and where new employment may come from. Look at the jobs that exist today that no one imagined one hundred years ago.
I do not fear robots forcing people out of work, but the vast horde of bureaucracy. Any excuse to handle other people’s money is blood to a vampire. When the vampires band together to feed the zombies, it really is not about what is best “for the starving children”.
This is a good idea, IF IT REPLACES the current system. If it is just added on, it doesn’t fix anything.
Well, actually they’re hoping that the folks getting it will keep on working - so they’d be getting some of their own taxes back.
Great ... I’d just love to send a bunch more of my money to Washington, for the privilege of getting a fraction of it back ...
Finland doesn’t have BLM so it will work better there than it would work here.
AND JUST THINK. Those “benefits” can be used to buy vests, lawn fertilizer, diesel fuel, and rental trucks. Great job Finland.
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.