Replacing U.S. Welfare system with a Basic Income Guarantee

It hasn't been shown to be an improvement until a) Cato adjusts their narrative and numbers to reflect the real world. And I've offered up my problems with BIG as it has more holes in it, and would need to be either far larger, or leave many of the welfare and social insurance programs in place, particularly Medicaid, and for oldsters to keep their SS and Medicare.

But, you're talking about a dream, as no oldster is going to want to give up their SS for less in BIG, then pay way more for health insurance than BIG could get them in the private insurance markets.

 

$8652 a month in SSI? Really? I call BS on that. That is over 100k per year.

 

Those who do not need the 10K due to higher incomes will not get the full 10k. The 10k, as income, would be taxed as income. Most BIG proposals account for this, as it greatly reduces the cost.

Furthermore, what welfare payouts are you referring to? Keep in mind a household with two adults would bring in $20k, which is more than most people get in TANF. Furthermore, looking at actual data of TANF benefits, almost no states have welfare benefits that exceed $10k per year, and the vast majority are far less--even for a household of 6 with a single parent.
http://greenbook.waysandmeans.house...v/files/2012/documents/Table 7-23 RM TANF.pdf

It is true that on average social security benefits add up to more than 10k per year. But what you forget is that individuals who are not retired will be getting an extra 10k per year that they did not have before. Saving and investing a portion of that 10k would more than make up for the reduced benefits when older. Furthermore, social security costs are expected to either keep rising, or result in reduced benefits. So the idea that our current system is sustainable is simply false.

 

Nothing is free! You want to magically hand out money it has to come from somewhere and in this case it would be debt money.

If you are means testing for the $10K then just use what is in place. If the current welfare amounts need to be adjusted then adjust them.

No one is going to 'save and invest' the money...all of it will be spent at Walmart in about ten seconds.

Current SS works just fine as long as the idiots in Washington place the FICA rates at the proper levels...

 

Who said anything was free? A BIG comes from the same place as current welfare spending. It would no more come from debt that what is currently already the case.

As for means-testing...that is not the case with BIG. Income taxes still apply to BIG, so those who make a lot of money simply will pay more taxes on the $10,000 income, essentially not getting all of at. That is a far cry from the bureaucratic mess of different programs with different requirements we have now.

Third, why would nobody save and invest the money? That is a baseless statement and a false assumption. If I were given $10,000, I would not spend it all at Wal-mart. I would save and invest a large portion of it. If people spend all the money and save none of it, that is their own choice.

 

Why not lower our tax burden through simplification?

 

We already have deficit spending for years to come! Now you want a program to pay even more than current programs are paying...where is it you believe this money comes from? If it is not sucked from taxpayers dollar for dollar, then it is more debt money.

You are being naïve to believe people will save and invest. What is the very large percentage of Americans who have no savings, live pay check to pay check, are behind on their debt payments...the small amount of money you are talking about will on average be spent within hours of receiving the money...

 

I meant a year, I'm disabled my mind has some issues working things out I have a court appointed person to help me handle some things, I make my own medical decisions and get an allowance for personal spending. They handle much of the other things that are to complicated for me to handle like medical appointments and programs. Its not fun my tested IQ is 124 trapped in a brain that doesn't "fire off" right if it worked normally in this body I would likely BE employed you can if your very bright to educational work. Focusing, using coping mechanisms, doing a routine and taking some drugs I can function a little better.

 

The general social Power to provide for the general welfare is clearly delegated to our federal Congress for the Union. We have a Commerce Clause. We should not be wasting our exorbitantly expensive super power on a War on Drugs. Why not end the boondoggle and generational form of theft known as our War on Drugs to free up money to better provide for the general welfare. We already have the legal and physical infrastructure in our republic. We don't need more government programs that have no actual solutions to our dilemma of simple poverty in our republic.

 

Why don't you call laws about alcohol a 'war on alcohol'?

We must have laws! If you don't like the laws, adjust them to benefit society...

 

Sure we need laws but laws need to make sense to everyone, even those who break them if we are to live in a nation and society that is not fractured and rife with widespread disregard and contempt of the law.

But do we really need so many pointlessly discriminatory laws that identify large groups of people who are otherwise law abiding as criminals to be subject to draconian penalties just because some legislation was persuaded to do so at some time in the past?

Knee jerk support for unjust law has made the US worse, not better.

 

Because the evil Drug empire already won our war on drugs.

Our federal Congress is only delegated the Power to Regulate forms of Commerce among the several States since the repeal of the Power to Prohibit forms of Commerce.

 

False. This program would cost the same as current welfare. So the first half of your post is totally irrelevant.

Those who save none will be those who make basically no other income other than the BIG. With a BIG replacing our current system, people would have greater incentive to save for the future than they do now. The data supports this. As people gain more income, they save more of it.


http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-savings-rate-by-income-level-2013-3

This is really quite intuitive. People need a certain base level of income to meet basic survival and housing needs. Thus anyone making that income or lower will have nothing to save to begin with. However, once income starts to exceed that, people will tend to start saving more. A BIG is more income, and thus people will have a higher propensity to save than before. Suggesting otherwise is ignoring the facts.

 

The suggested BIG is $10,000 per year, more than your current $8652. Your father will also have an additional $10,000, a portion of which he could give to you to help support any other costs. I do not think your situation would be any worse than it already is with a BIG instead.

 

It wouldn't be a terrible idea, but it's still welfare, to a lesser degree however. Receiving the hypothetical 10k, regardless of income would still mean burden on the taxpayer. How about eliminating both the income and corporate taxes, so that jobs would flock back to America? The ONLY tax we would have is a 5-10% Federal Consumption Tax. The IRS would be completely abolished. People would be able to spend and circulate their U.S. dollars to continuously prop up the economy, instead of it being in government hands. This means we would see a middle class again. People would actually be able to afford healthcare, as well as groceries and other misc things, with still having money leftover!

Unfortunately though, my ideal world will always be a fantasy. However, I can still live to talk about and encourage it. At least there's that much.

 

I agree as long as the amount that is given is enough to take care of basic needs. Decent shelter, food, access to basic healthcare (Instead of Medicaid set up a service you pay with this money). (Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs). I believe when those needs are met people will be more likely to try to do better. Not all of them. There will always be those who take advantage of a system, but they will be the ones who there aren't enough jobs for anyway.They won't have as much as everyone else but there will not be the abject poverty there is now.


It will help companies keep minimum wage down. Then people won't fight for a living wage. If people don't want to pay taxes they can live with the basics. There should be a tax system that isn't used to manipulate votes and pit people against one another. Preferably a set percentage based on your income. Would the rich pay more than the lower classes. Yes. But it is all relative.You either pay it or quit working. You want boats and bigger TVs or whatever, don't whine about paying taxes, you are not being forced to work it is your choice. The money should go up with the cost of living and not stagnate for 20 or 30 years like welfare.

It would be the middle of capitalism and socialism. Everyone could live without fear of being oppressed by the greed of others, but at the same time you could still have the opportunity to make as much money as you want. There is no making people work or telling them what they should do.

I see the merits of both sides. They are both good on paper. It is when it is set up so that there are people taking advantage of others, that they go wrong.

That is my ideal government. Do I ever think the masses would agree to something like that? Nope they will not be able to see anything except what they have always believed.

 

Even eliminating all direct taxes may not be enough for the right if it benefits the least wealthy in our republic. Only a Warfare-State requires direct taxes on even incomes for transfer purposes. A welfare-State doesn't need as much command economics and central planning, but can use socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual and in a more market friendly manner, thus, we wouldn't need an income tax, but for the insistence of the right in leaving no stone unturned when looking for "enemies of the State" with which to wage perpetual war.

 

How is it better I see right now my primary care provide, a pain management specialist, podiatrist and four other specialists, have in home care, drugs just one would be $4500 a year, wound care currently with special therapies for my infected toe and physical therapy. I need Medicaid if I had to pay cash for all this $10k wouldn't cut it even with my fathers help. Your plan my work for fit people but I'm sick and in pain and need lots of care and cannot work at this point. And I live modestly no fancy spending just working on getting by this laptop and basic broadband is my only luxury item.

What is the plan for people so disabled and sick that they need that level of care?

Now I have to lay down and rest, will check this post tonight.

 

Laws are not created overnight. Laws are carefully reviewed by hundreds/thousands of people, then reviewed by Congress, then reviewed by the Executive Branch. Laws cannot be perfect because it's simply too complex. And, once laws are on the books, even though society changes, it's very difficult to change those laws...as it should be!

We have created a $4 trillion government, with millions of workers, myriad levels of bureaucracy, with controls and processes, and 315 million Americans, etc. for everything they do...it is impossible to turn a ship this size on a dime. Many laws, especially drug laws, are political and controversial and emotional, so it's almost impossible to get those involved to have sane and objective dialogue...

 

IMO it's a pipedream! If you're talking about $100K perhaps people will save some but when you're talking about $10-$20K, this is money which is sorely needed just to get by...it will be spent!

 

With my medical needs and pain I'll die either from an untreated condition or from my own hand when the pain is to bad to go on, BIG is cruel on its own even the Swiss when it came up had a National Health Care system for all and didn't plan to toss out the safety net proper. The money with Medicaid, with Housing Assistance, with Food Stamps etc. fine those could be modified but tossing those out when some like me need them is crazy. And say I had to go to a skilled care facility to live that offered the care I need your talking $6000 a month not counting other costs like drugs for a shared room, kindly do the math if you give me a flat amount I would need $100k a year altogether maybe more.

Keeping me home is cheaper for everyone but I still need ample support. And others have serious complex medical needs especially the elderly.

 

I believe unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines is more cost effective for most people; means tested welfare should be kept for those for whom solving for a simple poverty of money may not be enough. The legal and physical infrastructure already exists in our republic. We should be lowering our tax burden not coming up with more government programs, blah...blah...blah, without any solutions being offered.

 

Where do I sign up?

 

Most all of these soundbites like BIG are nothing more than someone trying to game the system for a few bucks, and, has nothing to do with solving root problems of Americans. With 315 million Americans our needs are extremely diverse and any contrived system which ignores this is doomed from the get-go.

Sorry about your medical issues and I'll just share one comment; Even if a person earns $100K per year, which leaves out about 3/4's of Americans, depending on their insurance situation, catastrophic medical treatments can bankrupt them. There is something major wrong when 95% of Americans cannot come close to affording medical care! The ONLY reason we even have medical care is the requirement of medical insurance companies, and now the cost of insurance is beyond most Americans. This is a prime example in which the government continues to ignore the needs of a majority of Americans!

 

if you have the time and skills to write on this forum then you can also get a job too....