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

I am a firm believer in free markets and minimal government intrusion. That means that in my ideal world, there would be no welfare or anything of the sort. However, I am also pragmatic and realistic, and would be more than happen to accept an improvement over the current welfare disaster even if it is not ideal.

One of these ideas that I see as potentially beneficial is the idea of a basic income guarantee. Basically, give all Americans over the age of 21 a check (say $10,000), regardless of income, from the government.

The benefits include:

Bureaucracy: There are currently 126 federal welfare programs... all of which have their own bureaucracy. Replacing that welfare system with BIG would dramatically shrink government.
You don't need much bureaucracy when you are simply writing a check for the same amount to every citizen.

Costs: If presented as an alternative rather than an addition to the current welfare system, BIG could be considerably cheaper than what we have. Plus, it is much more desirable to see that money going directly to the citizens rather than towards maintaining a bigger bureaucracy.

Rent-seeking: A simple BIG means less room for political rent-seeking/opportunism. Currently, tax payer money tends to be given out to those who can make the best political case for it. Ultimately, this puts the truly poor at a disadvantage.

Thoughts?

http://www.cato-unbound.org/2014/08...matic-libertarian-case-basic-income-guarantee

 

I've heard of the concept, but I just don't believe that our political system would trade our extensive social service system for a 10,000 a year check. For the poor, they get a lot more, in dollar terms, under the current system then they would under a Basic Income Guarantee. So you would basically just have one more hideously expensive welfare program. Only this one would be impossible to reform since everyone would be getting it. Can you imagine the political spoils system that would go on with candidates trying to out bid each other in constantly raising the benefit? It would hasten bankruptcy.

 

Do they? Furthermore many of those benefits come with contingencies that not all poor people meet, and are for limited time periods.

Why would it be impossible to reform? That makes little sense at all. Considering that taxes would be paying for the program, I don't think it would be raised that easily. I for one, despite potentially benefiting from it, would not want to raise the amount. The political pandering for benefits now is far worse than a simple basic income guarantee.

Both welfare programs would be expensive. That is not disputed. But a BIG which would be a single easily enforced government program (requiring next to nothing to implement, mind you) seems far superior than the mess of over 100 separate means-tested programs we have now.

 

First, Cato isn't careful with their research all the time. They allow the agenda to lead to the conclusions, instead of the evidence. Cato overstated assistance programs for the poor by over 100. They made a claim that $660 billion was spent on welfare, when it was $440 billion.
http://www.nextnewdeal.net/rortybomb/pragmatic-libertarian-case-basic-income-doesnt-add

Cato's claim that the Federal government is so inefficient looks silly when you compere it to private charity.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3655

Private charities, at best, have administrative costs of 11%
http://www.theguardian.com/voluntary-sector-network/2013/may/02/good-charities-admin-costs-research

Then, to top it off, getting rid of Medicare and Social Security to go with the Cato plan which aren't welfare, is taking money away from people who would otherwise get it, and reduce income and leave people to buy insurance from more expensive private insurers.

 

The data you lists also cherrypicks data, and does not even include one of the largest programs, TANF. But there is no need to discuss this further. The topic of this thread is that BIG is better than our current welfare system, and has nothing to do with private charity.

 

TANF is included in the data.

And Cato brought the false idea that government is inefficient in administration, when clearly that is false. And the BIG idea takes money out of people's pockets, and the medical care for older people would see huge cost increases.

I'm sorry if the facts destroy Cato's nonsense.

 

Please point out TANF in the chart. Your source also ignores all of the other programs, and does not take into consideration state and local costs.
http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA694.pdf

All of the data was taken directly from reports of the government itself.
https://www.cfda.gov/

Now onto your arguments against BIG. All welfare programs take money out of people's pockets, so your first point is moot. There is also no reason to believe the cost of medical care for older people would see a huge increase with BIG. What is your reasoning behind that?

Try again.

 

his was in the first link.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...e-dont-spend-1-trillion-on-welfare-each-year/

Had you looked at the chart, and my links, it showed the administrative costs are low for governments to administer welfare programs and other programs. So low, the private sector can't match them.

Not by anything shown here.

It's not baseless if you know the facts... http://www.vox.com/cards/health-care-spending/what-is-medicare
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/node/11672

All too easy for me to knock your assertions down.

 

that would not work and would cost more then welfare

we will though need a new system if something that creates jobs doesn't come along soon to replace the jobs sent overseas

maybe public housing, public food cafeteria buffet style in gov apartments, if your a lucky one, you get a good job and leave the gov housing and food system, free birth control for those in these housing environments (to keep them from having babies they can't afford)

maybe the same for elderly, public housing locations for 60+ only
.

 

Welfare should not be handled at the federal level. The 10th Amendment affirms this. Welfare should be handled on the state level. With 50 different welfare programs, the states will discover what works and gravitate toward mimicking the successful states. General welfare does not equal individual welfare.

Also, making babies should not be rewarded. If someone is living on unearned government income, they have no business profiting from creating more dependants. Some "families" have been on the government teat for 5 generations and we are subsidizing it.

Just look up Angel Adams and you will see what I mean. They expect us to pay for their irresponsibility.

 

No, sorry. The administrative costs vs benefits, as displayed in that graph, are not in that link either.

I looked at your silly chart, and TANF was not included. Nor were the vast majority of programs. Either way, its irrelevant. BIG is also a government program, and would have lower administrative costs than what we have now regardless.

Erm...welfare spending is ultimately funded by taxes, so yes, all welfare spending takes money out of people's pockets..

Your facts ignore that medicare costs are low because government subsidizes part of them. A BIG would do the same thing.

Posting links and making no analysis whatsoever knocks nothing down. It just shows you are lazy and can't formulate a well-thought out argument.

 

The evidence shows it will not cost more, actually. It is also all dependent upon how the system works. Are the BIG benefits taxed at a certain income level or reduced? Most BIG programs would function this way. Why won't it work? Do you have an argument?

 

It would clearly vary from state to state, and there would be winners and losers. If you are an unemployed mother with children on TANF, SNAP, housing or housing vouchers, and Medicaid, you are much worse off with those programs replaced with a 10K a year check than if you just continued to get those programs. On the other hand, if you are single with no children and employed, an extra 10K is a great bonus. But this is a program in which the most poor and destitute would be worse off.

Medicare and Social Security are two programs that are difficult to reform and mostly it's only the elderly who collect those benefits. Imagine a program in which every single adult was eligible for? It would the sacred cow and third rail of all. Also I'm not sure where you get the idea that taxes would pay for it. We are in deficit spending territory so that's how this would be paid for, until it can't.

I appreciate that this would be a great boon to hipsters, but they are a section of the population I probably care the least about so I'm not willing to help them become even more lazy and worthless. Let them work on their screenplay at Starbucks on their own dime.

 

First, the Federal government sets the rules for Federal welfare programs. Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution gives congress the ability to raise revenues and spend them. Second, states are allowed to enhance Federal welfare programs with their own state programs. Third, there isn't 50 welfare programs.

 

Article 1 Section 8 says that Congress can provide for general welfare. I don't interpret that as individual welfare compensation.

Ideally, we should not have personal dealings with the feds unless they are our employer. We should deal with our states and the states should deal with the feds. States are supposed to be sovereign. Our current beuracracy has individual people dealing with both. We pay taxes to both state and federal governments on income and spending. We are drowning in government mandated responsibilities to support governments that take as much as they think they can from us and spend 40% more than they receive. It's time to overhaul how our government does business because it will be much more painful later.

 

Well, I'll help your inability to click links.

And the other non-welfare programs that the Cato paper included was largely addressed in the very first link to Mike Konczal's rebutting of it.

So would this Cato hybrid of plans. But, the benefits to the poor would be lessened and health care costs would go up.

Of course it's cheaper when government administers healthcare payments. The government has a far better ability to negotiate prices for services and a far lower administrative cost. And no profit motive.

Your laziness was already shown when you posted the Cato proposal(s), and couldn't defend it.

 

Those are all just assertions. When you have some hard evidence to support your claims, then I will consider them. Also keep in mind that these benefits are not permanent--they expire in many instances. The BIG would be guaranteed, not expiring at all.

The deficit spending financing a BIG would be no different than deficit spending financing current welfare at all levels.

To quote from the article: "Currently, resources are doled out to those who can make the best political case that they need or deserve it. And this is a contest in which the genuine poor are at a serious disadvantage relative to the better educated, wealthier, and more politically engaged middle class. The rent seeking is there.

A BIG, in contrast, allows virtually no room for bureaucratic discretion, and thus minimizes the opportunities for political rent-seeking and opportunism. It is, as the late James Buchanan once noted, a perfectly general policy that treats all citizens the same. It is thus entirely ill-suited for use as a method of political exploitation. We should therefore expect to see much less rent-seeking and opportunism with a BIG than we do with the present welfare state, and therefore a more effective transfer of resources toward the genuinely needy as opposed to the politically well-connected."

I just don't see a strong argument that with BIG there will be any more rent-seeking than there already is. And if expanding BIG involves increasing the debt, people are going to be against it. Just look at the current political environment--an increase in the deficit is consistently met with outrage.

 

Thank you for posting the TANF data. I stand corrected on that point assuming it is correct. However, your point is totally irrelevant to whether or not BIG is better than current welfare.

Yes...that is what I said.

You have provided no evidence that this is true.

How does that address BIG?

Half of what you say is only relevant to a debate about public welfare vs. private charity, which is not what this discussion is about. So far all you have stated is that under BIG the poor would be worse off and healthcare would be higher. You have offered no evidence as to why this would be true. Your baseless assertion merits no response until you do.

 

My interpretation is longstanding law. Yours isn't.

first, states gave up their sovereignty to the Federal government when they ratified the US Constitution. That's why those traitors from the South were wrong to illegally try to secede from the US. But, we smacked their traitor asses pretty good, and were even magnanimous enough to not put them all up in front of a firing line for being a bunch of traitorous scum. They have rights as states under the Federal umbrella, and it's worked well to this point. And the only changes we need to fix the deficits and debt are to increase revenues via increasing jobs and opportunities for new wealth creation, and some slightly higher income and capital gains taxes.

 

I can't look at history and see that as a general rule, if a policy involves increasing the debt, people are going to be against it. Otherwise, what happened?

I get that the policy is more "efficient" than the usual social welfare schemes but that has nothing to do with the politics of it' the poorest will be the worst off and I'm not sure what the point is of subsiding middle class and rich people at great cost, but for no apparent reason.

 

That's my point. BIG isn't going to be any more likely to increase the debt than what already exists. Those who are against increasing the debt aren't suddenly going to be in favor of it.

I also don't buy that chart at all. Something must be wrong. If it is true, then welfare recipients would be making over 61k per year. That is clearly not the case.

The idea is you are guaranteed a basic level of income, no matter what. If you suddenly lose your job, you don't have to worry about apply for some benefit you may or may not get, or waiting for benefits from various state, local, and federal programs that all might have different rules and regulations. If you have a job, you would have more income than if you just had the BIG. Those who are rich will not be getting subsidized. Their higher tax rates will cancel out any benefit that they get. Those with low incomes receive more in basic income than they pay in taxes and those with relatively high income pay more than they receive.

Clearly our system now is not working. With BIG no one is destitute but everyone has the positive incentive to work. BIG is an efficient, effective, and equitable solution to poverty that promotes individual freedom and leaves the beneficial aspects of a market economy in place. Is it ideal? No. But I don't see anything concrete that suggests it is not an improvement.

 

give them an education and job training and then they either sink or swim..their choice...but an income to stay home and do nothing?...dumb

 

Everyone gets the income, whether they stay home and do nothing or not. Welfare pays people who are out of work or who are working but in poverty. That doesn't change with BIG. Calling it dumb is also not an argument.

 

so since i make over 250,000k a year i will get the free money too?...like i said dumb idea...

 

take a typical welfare family now...they get welfare, food stamps, cheap housing, discount on utilities, head start for the kids. after school day care, free cell phone...and much more...and want to they do?...stay home drink or use drugs...and this is good?...give them a job and make them stand up for themselves...