SocialD
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2015
- Messages
- 2,467
- Reaction score
- 716
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
The only thing that irks me about basic income proposals (besides crazy high benefits under some proposals such as per the Swiss variant) is that everyone typically gets it to the last, even those who are living more than comfortably at six figures plus; I have always been of the opinion that there should be a basic means testing component to it, such that more money is saved by denying benefits to those for whom the economic benefits (both for themselves and society in terms of the demand and economic activity increase) and need are minimal than lost paying for the bureaucracy to feature it.
As to criticisms that it would disincentivize work, such disincentives have largely proven minimal: Guaranteed Annual Income
In some cases where basic income was attempted, economic activity actually increased due to a consequent expanded demand base from people having money to spend and utilize to productive ends, and the resulting formation of small businesses: Basic Income Grant Coalition - Namibia
Meanwhile work disincentives per existing welfare schemes may be even stronger given that welfare benefits are lost in direct proportion to income earned, creating a poverty trap.
There would have to be something because the cost of such a program would be massive. we are approaching 324 million people. how much would we give people? will it be just to adults?
last year government spend about 3.76 trillion in total. Social program spending was a little over 2 trillion of that and that includes medicare/Medicaid, social security and other programs but not including aca costs.
So if we ended all those programs and used the money we could give about 680 to 700 a month is all. and that would be to adults only.