A Plan to Banish Economic Insecurity. Forever.

Imagine a society where no one needs to fear economic destitution. Now try imagining that such a society is possible—without unemployment benefits or welfare programs. If it sounds like a big idea, that’s because it is: the basic income guarantee (BIG), a shrewd and radical concept that the U.S. Basic Income Guarantee Network (USBIG) would like to see gain some renewed traction.

At its heart, a BIG is a simple concept: An unconditional payment from the government serves as a floor under everyone’s income, so that regardless of gender, age, race, class, or creed, people can meet their basic needs. “Income in a market economy doesn’t have to start at zero,” USBIG coordinating committee member Karl Widerquist tells Multinational Monitor (May-June 2009).

The blanket payment would also reduce gender inequalities in our current social support system, the University of Reading political lecturer explains. In the United States, a disproportionate percentage of elderly women live in poverty, because Social Security favors direct earners over spouses and children. Additionally, while developed countries could afford a larger payment, less developed countries could still substantially support their citizens with a smaller sum. Widerquist tells Multinational Monitor that, in an ideal world, he’d like to see countries collaborate to ensure a high payment for all people.

BIG’s central conceit, while seemingly the stuff of radical economic policy, enjoyed support from a broad spectrum of thinkers in the 1970s. “At one point, it seemed like the inevitable next step in social policy. People as diverse as Martin Luther King and Richard Nixon endorsed it,” Widerquist tells the Monitor, a watchdog of multinational companies and labor issues. “But the diversity of its appeal was matched by the diversity of its opposition.”

http://www.utne.com/Politics/Economic-Insecurity-Basic-Income-Guarantee-Network.aspx?utm_content=02.10.10+Sci-Tech&utm_campaign=Emerging+Ideas-Every+Day&utm_source=iPost&utm_medium=email

And if you knew your needs were covered, you could take the time to look for a better job, or even go get some training for a better job.

if a job is just boring it's not necessary work.

eliminating all the current 'welfare' programs, food stamps, and unemployment. One article I skimmed estimated the cost at $1.8 trillion and we don't spend that much on human services a year! However, if we could also 'eliminate' Social Security as part of this, then it might be 'doable'.

I like it and she should too.

"In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being."---FDR
.
.
.
But THAT was the "Old" Democratic Party, the one I joined 42 years ago.
It bears NO resemblance to the Party using that name today.

We have built-in forgetters in America. Or are successfully propagandized and Democrats are now to the right of Goldwater.

and waaaaay to the Right of Eisenhower.

And why is the econ forum more liberal than GD?

He understood the importance of strong national industries and a strong regulations to keep the robber barons in check.

The Democratic Party of 1968 was much different than today's. I consider myself to be a Kennedy/Johnson Democrat, but apparently my type is considered to be "left-wing fringe" today :argh:

Where would the wealth come from?

Say $12,000 time pethaps 150,000,000 people, (Assuming half children, I don't know)

That's 1.8 trillion. From the CIA factbook, our revenues: $1.914 trillion, expenditures: $3.615 trillion (2009 est.), with a GDP of about 14 trillion. And we are goning into debt further and further, decreasing the value of our money.

Whose income or output are we going to tap?

Alaskans get their payment for oil and gas, and that because of a special arrangement so the U.S. can have property there (note - there is oil and gas in other states, but no payment).

Our money comes from labor, and we have 10-15 million people unemployed today. We can't just print paper - it would become worth less than nothing after a while. Other societies have tried similar plans, but ours has done more for a larger number of people that any other. We have a terrible problem in that we let bullies steal money at one far end of the scale, and we need to quit listening to them. But even with that resolved, it is not clear that we would have the labor (where our wealth comes from) to tap for this.

Interesting link, thank you.

And our rulers would never allow it anyway, they need a desperate underclass to keep wages depressed.

Milton Friedman was an advocate of a similar "negative income tax." He basically recognized that no civil society would ever adopt his radical brand of capitalism, so he proposed a negative income tax, which is essentially a minimum guaranteed income. In Friedman's view, the NIT would replace all other welfare programs -- instead of food stamps, WIC, everyday welfare, etc., each individual is guaranteed a very basic level of income. Thus, the government provides a safety net without the large administrative burden that a series of welfare programs require.

I wouldn't go as far as Friedman, obviously -- he used the NIT as an excuse to eliminate the minimum wage, and I would also make the poor eligible for major health insurance benefits -- but I can see a lot of merit in the argument behind this idea, particularly at the federal level. Have the federal government guarantee a minimum income (and health benefits), and let the states add on any "extras" they feel like (sorry, that's the closet federalist in me).

I doubt anything like this is feasible now, but it still seems like a good thought.

It sounds good until you do the math. There is no way you can both make it enough money to mean anything, and be able to afford it. Welfare is always base on multiple people working for each person collecting, so that only a small slice of each working person's productivity is taken.

”The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.” - Margaret Thatcher