SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Are Basic Income Proposals Crazy?
As proposals for universal basic income gain prominence, it’s worth asking if the benefits outweigh the costs to alleviate extreme poverty.
Aug 08, 2016
As much of the developed world struggles to address the growth of income inequality, there has been emerging consideration of a guaranteed basic income. There are a number of variations, but the basic idea is that government would eliminate the various forms of social welfare that are currently in place, and would instead send each citizen an annual amount sufficient to cover basic living expenses.
Most of us understand that without economic freedom, guarantees of personal, political and religious freedom aren't worth much. If your day-to-day existence is consumed with the struggle for survival, the fact that you have freedom of speech is small comfort.
A practical argument for a guaranteed income is efficiency--there would no longer be a need for the massive bureaucratic apparatus currently required to administer social welfare programs, no need to determine eligibility under the various standards in place for different programs. (Many years ago, conservative economist Milton Friedman proposed something similar: a "negative income tax" that would require payment from those earning above a certain amount, and send remittances to those below that threshold.)
Social science scholars see other benefits. As automation steadily displaces what were once middle-class jobs, receipt of a stipend sufficient to cover basic living expenses would allow people to go back to school, or to train for alternative employment, or work part-time. It would give new mothers--or fathers--the option to take time off to care for newborns; it would similarly facilitate caretaking for gravely ill spouses or parents.
"We also might expect that with a lessening of abject poverty, a number of the social ills that accompany privation would improve."
We also might expect that with a lessening of abject poverty, a number of the social ills that accompany privation would improve.
As beneficial as all that sounds, however, there are reasons why proposals for a guaranteed income have fared badly. In Switzerland last year, a basic income proposal on the ballot was overwhelmingly defeated; in 2013, the German Parliament debated a similar proposal and rejected it.
The first--and most obvious--negative is cost. Although economists argue about the actual net cost, after savings from eliminating our current expensive patchwork of social programs--such an approach would clearly require tax increases. In the United States, where taxes have become a dirty word even when they are earmarked to support basic services, this fact alone probably presents a politically insurmountable barrier.
Economists and others also question whether receipt of a guaranteed income, no matter how modest, would reduce the incentive to work. There is very little empirical data on that issue; however, there was an interesting experiment in Manitoba, Canada during the 1970s, called Mincome. It was intended to assess the social impact of a guaranteed annual income, including whether it would cause such disincentives, and if so, to what degree. Apparently, only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less.
Mothers with newborns stopped working because they wanted to stay home longer with their babies, and teenagers worked less because they weren't under as much pressure to support their families, which resulted in more teenagers graduating. However, participants knew the project was not permanent, and it is impossible to know whether--and how--that knowledge affected the results.
There are a number of other legitimate concerns about so drastic a shift in the way we discharge our obligations to our fellow-citizens.
Given American cultural attitudes that valorize work and demean those who rely on assistance, it's safe to say that the United States is unlikely to institute a guaranteed income program--it certainly won't happen in my lifetime. But what is worth considering is what it should mean to be a member of a political community. What are the reciprocal obligations of the citizen and the state?
What do we owe the nation, and what do we owe each other?
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
Sheila Kennedy
Sheila Suess Kennedy, J.D. is Professor of Law and Public Policy in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University Purdue University at Indianapolis. She blogs at www.sheilakennedy.net
As much of the developed world struggles to address the growth of income inequality, there has been emerging consideration of a guaranteed basic income. There are a number of variations, but the basic idea is that government would eliminate the various forms of social welfare that are currently in place, and would instead send each citizen an annual amount sufficient to cover basic living expenses.
Most of us understand that without economic freedom, guarantees of personal, political and religious freedom aren't worth much. If your day-to-day existence is consumed with the struggle for survival, the fact that you have freedom of speech is small comfort.
A practical argument for a guaranteed income is efficiency--there would no longer be a need for the massive bureaucratic apparatus currently required to administer social welfare programs, no need to determine eligibility under the various standards in place for different programs. (Many years ago, conservative economist Milton Friedman proposed something similar: a "negative income tax" that would require payment from those earning above a certain amount, and send remittances to those below that threshold.)
Social science scholars see other benefits. As automation steadily displaces what were once middle-class jobs, receipt of a stipend sufficient to cover basic living expenses would allow people to go back to school, or to train for alternative employment, or work part-time. It would give new mothers--or fathers--the option to take time off to care for newborns; it would similarly facilitate caretaking for gravely ill spouses or parents.
"We also might expect that with a lessening of abject poverty, a number of the social ills that accompany privation would improve."
We also might expect that with a lessening of abject poverty, a number of the social ills that accompany privation would improve.
As beneficial as all that sounds, however, there are reasons why proposals for a guaranteed income have fared badly. In Switzerland last year, a basic income proposal on the ballot was overwhelmingly defeated; in 2013, the German Parliament debated a similar proposal and rejected it.
The first--and most obvious--negative is cost. Although economists argue about the actual net cost, after savings from eliminating our current expensive patchwork of social programs--such an approach would clearly require tax increases. In the United States, where taxes have become a dirty word even when they are earmarked to support basic services, this fact alone probably presents a politically insurmountable barrier.
Economists and others also question whether receipt of a guaranteed income, no matter how modest, would reduce the incentive to work. There is very little empirical data on that issue; however, there was an interesting experiment in Manitoba, Canada during the 1970s, called Mincome. It was intended to assess the social impact of a guaranteed annual income, including whether it would cause such disincentives, and if so, to what degree. Apparently, only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less.
Mothers with newborns stopped working because they wanted to stay home longer with their babies, and teenagers worked less because they weren't under as much pressure to support their families, which resulted in more teenagers graduating. However, participants knew the project was not permanent, and it is impossible to know whether--and how--that knowledge affected the results.
There are a number of other legitimate concerns about so drastic a shift in the way we discharge our obligations to our fellow-citizens.
Given American cultural attitudes that valorize work and demean those who rely on assistance, it's safe to say that the United States is unlikely to institute a guaranteed income program--it certainly won't happen in my lifetime. But what is worth considering is what it should mean to be a member of a political community. What are the reciprocal obligations of the citizen and the state?
What do we owe the nation, and what do we owe each other?
Sheila Kennedy
Sheila Suess Kennedy, J.D. is Professor of Law and Public Policy in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University Purdue University at Indianapolis. She blogs at www.sheilakennedy.net
As much of the developed world struggles to address the growth of income inequality, there has been emerging consideration of a guaranteed basic income. There are a number of variations, but the basic idea is that government would eliminate the various forms of social welfare that are currently in place, and would instead send each citizen an annual amount sufficient to cover basic living expenses.
Most of us understand that without economic freedom, guarantees of personal, political and religious freedom aren't worth much. If your day-to-day existence is consumed with the struggle for survival, the fact that you have freedom of speech is small comfort.
A practical argument for a guaranteed income is efficiency--there would no longer be a need for the massive bureaucratic apparatus currently required to administer social welfare programs, no need to determine eligibility under the various standards in place for different programs. (Many years ago, conservative economist Milton Friedman proposed something similar: a "negative income tax" that would require payment from those earning above a certain amount, and send remittances to those below that threshold.)
Social science scholars see other benefits. As automation steadily displaces what were once middle-class jobs, receipt of a stipend sufficient to cover basic living expenses would allow people to go back to school, or to train for alternative employment, or work part-time. It would give new mothers--or fathers--the option to take time off to care for newborns; it would similarly facilitate caretaking for gravely ill spouses or parents.
"We also might expect that with a lessening of abject poverty, a number of the social ills that accompany privation would improve."
We also might expect that with a lessening of abject poverty, a number of the social ills that accompany privation would improve.
As beneficial as all that sounds, however, there are reasons why proposals for a guaranteed income have fared badly. In Switzerland last year, a basic income proposal on the ballot was overwhelmingly defeated; in 2013, the German Parliament debated a similar proposal and rejected it.
The first--and most obvious--negative is cost. Although economists argue about the actual net cost, after savings from eliminating our current expensive patchwork of social programs--such an approach would clearly require tax increases. In the United States, where taxes have become a dirty word even when they are earmarked to support basic services, this fact alone probably presents a politically insurmountable barrier.
Economists and others also question whether receipt of a guaranteed income, no matter how modest, would reduce the incentive to work. There is very little empirical data on that issue; however, there was an interesting experiment in Manitoba, Canada during the 1970s, called Mincome. It was intended to assess the social impact of a guaranteed annual income, including whether it would cause such disincentives, and if so, to what degree. Apparently, only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less.
Mothers with newborns stopped working because they wanted to stay home longer with their babies, and teenagers worked less because they weren't under as much pressure to support their families, which resulted in more teenagers graduating. However, participants knew the project was not permanent, and it is impossible to know whether--and how--that knowledge affected the results.
There are a number of other legitimate concerns about so drastic a shift in the way we discharge our obligations to our fellow-citizens.
Given American cultural attitudes that valorize work and demean those who rely on assistance, it's safe to say that the United States is unlikely to institute a guaranteed income program--it certainly won't happen in my lifetime. But what is worth considering is what it should mean to be a member of a political community. What are the reciprocal obligations of the citizen and the state?
What do we owe the nation, and what do we owe each other?
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.