Universal Basic Income: Another bad idea or a fair compromise?

 

            The GOP and Libertarian Party often get accused by the Democrats for not caring enough about the poor. The best answer I have seen is that the states should take care of welfare programs or private charities. While I believe those are good answer, the Democrats will never go for those. That is when I ran into the idea of Universal Basic Income.

            Basically a Universal Basic Income guarantees a minimum income for every citizen. There are a number of benefits to having a Universal Basic Income. First, it simplifies the welfare system on all levels. For those receiving benefits, they would get cash to use as they need, granting them the liberty to allocate funds to suit their individual needs. It will allow the government to end the massive bureaucracy in place to distribute benefits, reducing the size of and cost to the government and reducing the challenges for the individual in obtaining the benefits they need. We could end programs like social security, food stamps, low income housing, WIC, and more. It would also eliminate businesses to game the system though lobbying for contracts to build low income housing or to get their food accepted on a food stamp card.

            A few of the drawback would include having the government follow through with eliminating the other welfare programs. It is easy to get the government to spend money, it is very hard to get them to stop.

            If people can meet basic needs they will have no incentive to work. Our current system has this problem too but has government bureaucracy costs on top of it. The Universal Basic Income would have to be set high enough so people can survive, but low enough so they cannot afford things they want, such as an iPhone, a car, or good internet service.

            The level of Universal Basic Income would become a political football. This is a huge problem in our current system too, one party wants less money for entitlements (though they never say which ones and never follow through once they are in office) while another party will want to increase the level of income. The simplicity of the Universal Basic Income will make it easier for the voter to understand how it works and will make it easier to hold our elected representatives accountable.

            The biggest problem most people have is that they do not like to give out cash. They claim that the money will not be spent on taking care of themselves but be used for drugs or gambling or some other frivolous pursuit. That is exactly right, they will, but we still see this problem under our current system. People buy a stake at the store with their food stamps and sell the stake for 50% of what they paid for it to get cash, which they use to buy lotto tickets. The person on food stamps finds a way to get what they want and if they waste tax payer money they don’t care. The only people that are hurt by forcing money to go to specific things are the tax payers. We lose because the recipient finds a way around and we lose because we then have to pay someone to monitor the recipient.

            Universal Basic Income may or may not be the best idea. Instead it is a compromise that will reduce the cost of government, increase the personal liberty of the individual receiving the benefit, while providing help to those who need it. Let me know what you think, are there certain safeguards you would want in place? Is this a terrible idea that will waste time and money? Or is it an idea that will cost money but cost less money than our current system and will be a step in the right direction? Let me know in the comments below.