by wj
There have been lots of progressive arguments put forward for adopting UBI (Universal Basic Income). I expect everyone here is acquainted with them. But let’s face it, those who can be persuaded by those arguments are already on board. So what I propose to do here is to make a conservative case for doing so. That is, one built on these principles:
- KISS
- Small government (to the extent possible)
- Readily understandable by the general public
- Reflects reality (rather than ideology)
If that doesn’t reflect your understanding of “conservative”, I can only say that you have let reactionaries and libertarians pollute your understanding of the term.
Oh yes, and while it isn’t a conservative principle per se,
- An approach which makes it harder to game the system.
Just to set the stage, what I am talking about is a system which would send a regular check to every US citizen, man, woman, or child. (I’m thinking every two weeks. But monthly or weekly are minor tweaks.)
Why do that?
- Because people living at the poverty level contribute less to the nation than they might.
- Because children growing up in poverty have their development restricted. That potentially posing a burden down the line.
- Because the current welfare system is a mess.
- There are numerous programs, each with different eligibility criteria, different application processes, different bureaucracies to interface with, etc. As a result, people who should be getting various benefits often miss out. Sometimes because they simply aren’t aware of a particular program that they would be eligible for. Sometimes because wading thru the application process is just way too much work. UBI is just way simpler for everybody.
- Also, administering all those different programs requires a huge bureaucracy. Actually, multiple huge bureaucracies. All those bureaucrats must be paid, their medical insurance paid, their retirement funded, etc. UBI shrinks all that government.
- And finally, it’s really hard to game UBI. There are no eligibility criteria that you can falsify. If you are born here, you get signed up at birth. If you are a naturalized citizen, you get signed up as part of the naturalization process. Challenging to fake either.
The main arguments against UBI are three:
- We can’t afford it.
- It would eliminate the incentive to work
- It would draw in a flood of immigrants looking to get on the gravy train.
These are variously false to fact, irrelevant, and/or readily designed around.
First, that we can’t afford it. Except, of course, we can – a poor country might be in that position; we are not. First, with UBI we could pretty well eliminate the various existing welfare programs. That not only makes those funds available, but also the funds used to administer them. (The cost of administering UBI should be minimal. See below.) Beyond that, we can simply increase the top marginal tax rates a little. It's not like that is going to impact the quality of life of anyone in those brackets.
There are, of course, arguments against tax increases. The first is that it will discourage investment. But if that were true, then the various tax cuts we have seen over the past 4 decades should have substantially increased investment. But the fact is, they didn’t. The second is that it is somehow unfair. But this is, quite simply, bullsh*t. (Unless, I suppose, you are an extreme libertarian, who thinks any taxation is unfair.)
Beyond that, We already have a system, within Social Security, for mailing regular checks to large numbers of people. I don’t think we want to just adopt that, for a variety of reasons. But it might provide some useful software, so we aren’t trying to build something from scratch.
There’s no need to evaluate eligibility (beyond citizenship). You only need a very simple database consisting of these fields:
- Name
- Social security number (because names are not unique)
- Flag on payment method (electronic or paper check)
- For electronic payments, a financial institution and account number
- For checks, a mailing address
To maintain it you need a small staff to
a) add people at birth,
b) add immigrants upon naturalization,
c) remove people at death.
Second, It would eliminate the incentive to work. That assumes that the only incentive to work is to earn enough to pay for the very basic necessities. No doubt there are a few people for whom that is true. But the numbers are likely minimal. Look at how many of us work long hours, even though we have plenty of money beyond what we need for necessities. Why would poor people not have the same desire for more? Look at how many not-poor people, when they retire, take up a hobby which entails lots of work – not paid, but work nonetheless. Face it, people generally want to be engaged in something where they can look back at the end of the day and say “I accomplished something today.”
Now it may be true that there are some jobs which people will only do for the wages currently on offer if they can’t avoid it. I’m thinking of things like agricultural field work or washing dishes. (Both of which I have done in my time.) Well, there are two options there: you can start paying more to get those jobs done. Or you can hire immigrants who would be willing to work for current wages. Which brings us to
Third, It would draw in a flood of immigrants looking to get on the gravy train. Except, as laid out above, there is no immigrant gravy train. You only get UBI if you are a citizen. Which can include naturalized immigrants, but only after they have been here, and contributing, for some years. Now the rock bottom wages currently on offer may constitute a gravy train compared to what they had in their home country. But UBI doesn’t change that incentive.
Can you beat the system? Sure. The same way you can beat Social Security, you can simply neglect to report a death and keep cashing the checks. But how often does that actually work out? Essentially, you’d have to have someone die, and bury them in the back yard, to avoid notification happening.
Om sum, UBI would be a huge conservative plus.
Recent Comments