The US federal government spends well
over six hundred billion dollars a year
on welfare spread across more than a
hundred and twenty different programs.
When you add in spending at the state
and local level
total welfare spending in the United
States amounts to over a trillion dollars a year.
That's over $20,000 for
each and every poor person in the United States.
Sounds great right? But
unfortunately, not only has this massive
spending not solved the problem of
poverty it's sometimes made it worse. Here's a radical idea...
Why not scrap the current system, eliminate the hundred and twenty federal programs in their
bureaucracies and simply give the money
we spent on them straight to the people
were trying to help? There's a policy
that's been getting a lot of attention
lately they would do exactly that.
A basic income guarantee or minimum
basic income would guarantee each
citizen and income sufficient to meet
their basic needs. The money would be
given regardless of whether recipients
are working or not and even regardless
of whether they're willing to work or not. Now that's a crazy sounding idea.
But whats interesting is that it's managed to draw support from across the political
spectrum not just from political
liberals on the left, but from some
conservatives and libertarians on the right.
A basic income guarantee would be less
paternalistic, less bureaucratic, and more
fair than our current welfare state. Here
are three reasons why...
First, a basic income is simple. It's simple to administer since everyone gets the same
amount you don't need a complicated
bureaucracy let alone over a hundred and
twenty of them, and it's simple for
recipients too. Right now it's difficult
for welfare recipients even to figure out
which benefits they're eligible for.
And receiving those benefits requires
filling out a lot of different forms
and traveling to a number of different
offices. With a basic income all people
would need to do is cash a check. Second, a basic income gives people more freedom.
Under our current system when the
government gives you housing vouchers. or
food stamps you have to use those
benefits on what the government thinks
you need. But what if what you really need
is something completely different.
Or what if you want to forego present
consumption
and save your benefits for the future
can't save food stamps in the bank.
But you can save cash and you can spend it on whatever you think you need. A basic
income gives people the freedom to make
their own decisions about how to improve
their own lives. Third, a basic income treats everyone the same. Our current system
gives benefits to some people but not to
others. That means we spend a lot of resources
snooping around the details of people's
private lives to see if they really
qualify or not. And that also means that
there's a big incentive for special
interest groups to gain the system to
their own advantage or to oppress or
disenfranchised groups they don't like. A simple rule that treats everyone equally,
isn't just more fair, it's more stable. The supporters of a basic income disagree about
a lot of things including how much money
the program ought to give, and whether it ought to be
an addition to our current welfare
system or a replacement for it. But what
they all agree on is that a simple basic
income scheme would be a dramatic
improvement over our current welfare
state. Maybe not the best system you can
possibly imagine but a realistic and
politically viable alternative.
So what do you think?
Leave your thoughts in the comments
below.
