Universal 'Guaranteed Income' Schemes Picking Up Steam as Pandemic Ravages the Economy

With close to 30 million Americans still unemployed and thousands of businesses facing an uncertain future, calls for a “guaranteed income” are becoming louder.

Guaranteed income is giving cash to people who need it because they’re living in poverty. It should not be confused with a “Universal Basic Income,” which is money given to everyone regardless of employment situation or wealth.

The idea is centuries old but has actually been tried in very few nations. The most recent experiment occurred among 2000 unemployed workers in Finland. And, not surprisingly, it was mostly a failure. There were slight improvements in the feelings of “well-being” among the unemployed, but the two-year program had little effect on the unemployment rate or economic security.

The UBI has garnered support from the right and left alike. Conservatives find it attractive because if everyone had a basic income, almost the entire welfare state should virtually disappear as there would be no need for it. With a guaranteed income, however, all those programs remain and the guaranteed income program is just piled on top of it.

Proponents of guaranteed income aren’t concerned with statistics or whether people living in poverty find a job. For them, it’s all about the Benjamins and social justice.

“COVID-19 has shone a bright, hot light on our systemic failures,” said Mayor Libby Schaaf of Oakland, California. “Oakland has seen more than a doubling in homelessness, and I am terrified that once these eviction moratoriums expire, we will see a homelessness armageddon.”

Schaaf is another signatory of the Mayors for Guaranteed Income statement of principles. Her city was once thought of as the working-class sibling to San Francisco. In recent years Oakland has become unaffordable for many who’ve called it home for generations: Along with rising homelessness, gentrification in overdrive,”

Isn’t welfare “guaranteed income?”

Now, these are unusual times in that we’ve self-administered an extremely deflationary shock. Under those circumstances, government assistance, financed by borrowing, is merited. But even Keynes recognized that in good times, the government should reverse that profligacy and run a surplus. Like that will ever happen.

Everyone will twist this crisis into supporting their ideology or cause.

Business will cut costs and services, politicians will grandstand or slam their opponent, social activists, unions, government agencies, the news media, everyone has “interests,” and now comes the game of furthering those interests with this tool.

During the global warming scam you had hotels in DC charging $200 a night and asking customers not to get fresh towels when staying multiple nights, because that’s best for the environment. LOL

Libby, why is it you failed to mention the governmental cause of this catastrophe? And why have you not called for reopening the economy in order to stave off further catastrophic developments?

/rhetorical questioning

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rx9—zQDfog

Afterburner with Bill Whittle: The Gods of Wisdom and Virtue

Rudyard Kipling, October 26, 1919

‘Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.’

George Santayana,

Conservatives find it attractive because if everyone had a basic income, almost the entire welfare state should virtually disappear as there would be no need for it.

While I agree that obviously all other welfare would need to be eliminated if FedGov did this, it still doesn't come close to being affordable. Per https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2020USbn_21bc6n#usgs302, we will only spend ~$463B on welfare in 2020. (This doesn't include SS, or MediCare/Caid, but those aren't quite the same.) So, just taking most welfare programs, including State/local spending, we get a UBI of $1400 per person per year. No way that's going to be feasible, for Libs or Conservatives. Libs need more, Conservatives don't want to allow any other welfare stuff that would naturally get added.

If we get rid of Medicaid, that spending now comes to $3500 a year. Still not livable for almost any welfare leeches. Eliminating Medicare (which is mostly old people spending) brings us to $5600 a year total, or $467 a month. Adding Social Security to the mix, even though it's more of an entitlement than a full-blown welfare column, is only adding another ~$280/month.

So, cutting ALL welfare and SS, will only give us a UBI of just under $750/month. And, that's heavily cutting anyone on SS/Medicare currently (average SS benefit is $1500/month, PLUS whatever they get off of Medicare). Any plan doing this is going to majorly screw over the older population. You could always "means-test" the payments, which would allow for everyone else to get more, but then it's not really a UBI. Plus, the entire point of this is to eliminate fraud and reduce government spending on it, and these numbers just aren't gonna work for either side of the debate.

We just need to lump-sum pay out every single current SS account, and fully exit FedGov from any welfare. Let the States (private charity) handle it like they're supposed to.

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.