This is a popular, but not exhaustive, introduction to the idea of Basic Income and direct cash transfer programs.
Even though I am a supporter of Basic Income, to start discussion I'd like to play devil's advocate and provide an alternate view by listing some of the negative criticisms of these programs and their results that I've heard, because the linked article takes a supportive view of them.
--
Give Directly:
Give Directly is a new charity that is popularizing direct cash transfers, which previously were mostly done as economic experiments run by developmental economists under that context. GiveWell.org's positive evaluation of it provides a wealth of information on the charity. Give Directly is not just sponsoring these programs, it is also collecting data on their effectiveness and continuously refining its methods from the results.
Critics of these direct cash transfer programs say funding for them does not come from within the community itself, so the experiments are't reflective of self-sustaining programs for entire countries, and the culture and work ethic that exists in developing countries is different from that of developed countries, so giving cash in these countries will work because people will be entrepreneurial with it, while they wouldn't be in developed countries.
--
Mincome:
Critics of this experiment cite the fact that Mincome was also similarly funded with money from outside the community, and the fact that it was designed to be temporary and recipients were informed that it was temporary. Since it was a temporary program, critics believe that those receiving Mincome knew it wouldn't last forever, and therefore did not reduce their employment or become dependent on it as they might have if it was a persistent part of their lives.
This shocked me: I don't often give change to people begging, but several times a year I will give someone asking amounts in cash between $20 and $50. The response is always gratifying and I know that for at least a night (perhaps several) that money could have a real impact. I tend to agree that giving money directly to a person and not through an organization is more efficient and possibly more rewarding for all involved.None of the men wasted their money on alcohol, drugs or gambling. On the contrary, most of them were extremely frugal with the money they had received. On average, only 800 pounds had been spent at the end of the first year.
It should be tempered by acknowledging that there's a difference between "windfall money" and "steady-state money." Most people have a pretty good idea how they'd spend a windfall, and most of them would spend it sensibly. Generally their need for a windfall was not the result of irresponsibility, but rather the slow vice of American living. I work a lot of competition reality. Big prizes are usually in play. The #1 proposed use of all winnings? Paying off credit card debt.
I presented the BI argument to someone whose judgment I trust and whose opinion I respect, and his response was this: if America agrees to give all of its citizens over the age of 21 $6000+ a year, it had better take actual drastic measures to curtail immigration both legal and illegal, because even more people will come to America (and become citizens) than already do. Those worldwide who make less than that per year, which is hundreds of millions, will think "now we really have nothing to lose by going to America." My response was that the US would have to create stringent guidelines around who exactly could get this money -- people who could clearly prove citizenship, people who had been citizens for X years, etc. But that somewhat defeats the purpose of so-called 'no strings attached' money. Just words for thought. I'm still hashing out what I think about this issue.
The conservatives often harsh on the "freeloaders" drawn to the safety net in The Netherlands. I haven't looked at it in years and can't speak authoritatively, but your friend's response is one that tracks with reality. What the actual numbers are I couldn't tell you and am fully prepared to believe in smoke and mirrors. As per usual, the tricky bit is in the numbers: the author points out that a basic income in the Netherlands would cost 1/3 of NL's GDP. Not defense budget, not overall tax burden, GDP. In the US, similar measures (give everybody the poverty line) would cost $3.5T, or 25% of our $15T GDP… AKA 5x the defense budget. You don't get there with a flagrantly socialist tax structure, and that's a tough row to hoe from here in the land of Reaganomics.
I read that even if we axed every social welfare program that you can name, we'd still only be halfway or less to 'give everyone the poverty line'. That's why I've been operating on an estimate of $6000 when I talk about it. Not like this'll happen in the US anyway.
I agree 100%, yet I still find the discussion interesting. The Great Republican Die Off is coming, and I wonder what a generation of under-employed, over-educated people are going to bring with them.
Reading about the youth Republican movement -- such as it is -- is very interesting. There's a small crop of young GOPers who have sane social policies and also have sane economic policies. They don't have power at the moment because not enough old fucks have died but in 15-20 years maybe discourse will be level again. In other words, futurists, don't solve aging just yet...
Tom Hartmann (there I go again) said that it makes a lot more sense to reform existing parties than it does to form splinter parties, and that due to the electoral college, no more than two parties will ever work in the United States. He made the point that it is to the benefit of Democrats everywhere to work to create a sane adversarial party so that Democrats can battle policy choices, rather than dyed-in-the-wool insanity.
IMO the biggest problems caused by our power-distributed income distribution don't come from those that have too little but those who have too much.