Time for a guaranteed income?

[eridani]

http://www.nationofchange.org/2015/09/07/why-we-need-a-guaranteed-income-soon/

The concept of a Basic Income in the U.S. goes back to Thomas Paine, one of the driving forces for independence and inequality during the American Revolution. More recently, it’s been supported by very non-liberal individuals like Fredrick Hayek, Milton Friedman, and Richard Nixon.

One of the earliest experiments with guaranteed incomes was the “Mincome” (minimum income) program conducted in the town of Dauphin, Manitoba during the 1970s. The results were never made clear, partly because of a change to a more conservative government, which put the program’s records in storage, unevaluated. One census review, however, found that hospitalization rates dropped for the recipients of the basic income payments. Today in Canada, the mayors of two cities in right-leaning Alberta are considering a renewal of the guaranteed income concept.

Back in the U.S., the Alaska Permanent Fund has thrived for 35 years, even with anti-socialist conservatives in power. Texas has long employed a “Permanent School Fund” to distribute funds from mineral rights to the public education system. Wyoming has used a similar “Mineral Trust Fund” to help eliminate state income taxes. Nebraska distributes low-cost electricity from a publicly owned utility. Oregon has used the proceeds from wind energy to return hundreds of dollars to households. Vermont has proposed “Common Assets Trust” to raise money from taxes on pollution and pay dividends to residents.

A recent study of 18 European countries found “increasing employment commitment as social spending gets more generous” — in other words, dividend payments encourage people to work harder, rather than the other way around. Now cities in the Netherlands are preparing similar experiments with such “basic income” payments. Citizens of Switzerland and Finland have voted in favor of basic incomes. Jeremy Corbyn, candidate for the UK Labour Party, has made “quantitative easing for people” part of his campaign, with plans for infrastructure, housing, and energy projects.

A program in Uganda followed young people who were given cash grants with twice the typical annual income. After two to four years most had invested their earnings in vocations, causing their earnings to rise by 40 percent or more, an outcome that generally lasted well beyond the four-year study period. Women overall earned more than men. As summarized by the authors of the study, “The grants are typically invested and yield high returns…even among poor, unemployed and relatively uneducated women.”

The charity Give Directly, which has been highly rated by the charity research organization GiveWell, provided cash transfers to poor rural households in Kenya. Results showed increased spending on food, medical needs, and education, with very little used for alcohol and tobacco, and with similar outcomes for both males and females. According to the authors of the study, “Transfer recipients experience large increases in psychological well-being.”

[Hydra]

1. Past time

The social benefits from getting everyone out of poverty would be enormous, and it would provide great benefits to people raising families. We may get back to kids having mom or dad or both home more often.

[jeff47]

2. It would probably be cheaper than the overhead for all of our other programs.

For example, Social Security's overhead is MUCH less than "welfare" programs, since it's far easier to enforce "give money to everyone over 67".

[Hydra]

4. That's the reason some libertarians like the idea

They hate the whole nanny state thing. I do too in this case- I used to be in the services offices every week submitting paperwork and working around their denials to my disabled relative. So much time and money is spent trying to throw people off the programs that I wouldn't be surprised if that was 2/3 the cost of it.

[MisterP]

3. it worked in Canada so they shut it down

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MINCOME