Argh! I’m not sure what about the proposal bothers me the most: the naively arrogant notion that there is a simple solution to complex problems or the complete lack of understanding of economic reality involved in this woman’s views.
Such a proposal is wrong, economically and, IMHO, morally. It is wrong for the following reasons:
-Somebody’s got to pay for that “basic income”, and it won’t be the people getting the money.
-There is always a “creep factor” in any government spending program. Over time, taxpayers will be expected to pony up more and more for less and less results.
-Sometimes, poverty is the result of poor decisions. If people choose not to save or to spend their money on frivolous things rather than invest in their future, what makes anyone think that handing out “free” money is going to do anything but reinforce that behavior?
-In fact, you might see an INCREASE in poverty in certain welfare cases. The author suggests replacing existing systems with this program. EBT, WIC and the like have restrictions in them to try to ensure the money and goods are spent on what it is intended for. We have also seen a lot of fraud and abuse in that area. Giving strings-free cash might work where everyone makes rational economic decisions, but in reality we’re likely to see a lot of this money blown in short order.
-Despite what the author argues, it will create a disincentive for workers. Not in working at all, perhaps, but in ambition. If I can work as a fast food worker, and, with my “basic income money” earn as much as someone who has learned a trade or gotten an education, why should I push myself to go further? Especially if that free money gets cut off at some income level?
-What we NEED is a re-evaluation of our trade policies, the Obama administration’s economic policies, and so on. The best way to address income equality is with real economic and job growth.
When free cellphones are considered a “necessity of life” for the obese poor, it’s already all over but the crying. And even after getting these “free” phones, the criminal element still considers that it deserves a better phone, so goes “apple-picking”-stealing Apple products from the owners in broad daylight.
It tells a revealing story as to what is considered “poor” in America and what is considered poor in most of the rest of the world. Here, poor people are obese, many eat items which the people who paid the taxes for their EBTs can’t afford, their utilities and housing are reduced or free, they get vouchers to live in houses that the taxpayers can’t afford, they sit on their duffs while their children destroy the neighborhoods which the taxpaying sucker worked OT to move to in order to get away from their criminal element, etc.
And now they should all get a “free” basic income. Let’s just all quit work, what the heck, the “gubmint” will pay for everything.