A basic income does not really change the amount of money people have available. You exchange paying some amount of taxes and handing the money to people qualifying for government benefits for paying more taxes and handing out money to everyone. You may save some money on the bureaucracy for figuring out who is eligible for how much benefits, you may make life easier for people having to apply for benefits, but you also give up the ability to match benefits to individual circumstances making some better and others worse off, you may create some additional incentive not to take a job, ... But to a first approximation everyone will have the same amount of money available.
Often the incentive to take a job would be better under Basic Income as there's so many cliff edge benefits that phase out quickly as you work/earn more in the current system.
I am not disputing that a basic income may make peoples' lives easier, my point is just that a basic income does - to a first approximation - not provide additional money.
(None of it was possible. We haven't gotten the purported DOGE dividend, or tarriff refunds. Though the $500 Obamacare 'refunds' are in the works and the soldiers all got some $1776 bonus... and everyone's suddenly privately funding the Trump accounts as a bribe to him, I guess.)
If you don't like calling them "Trump Accounts", you can call them 530A accounts (that's the "real" name). They're actually a really great thing. Aside from the free money being given to babies by rich folk, they enable any American family to do something for their kids that wealthy business owners have been doing but you can't.
Comments
If all of that is possible, why not just provide a reliable basic income? Why does it need to feel like a politician is bribing you for your vote?
A basic income does not really change the amount of money people have available. You exchange paying some amount of taxes and handing the money to people qualifying for government benefits for paying more taxes and handing out money to everyone. You may save some money on the bureaucracy for figuring out who is eligible for how much benefits, you may make life easier for people having to apply for benefits, but you also give up the ability to match benefits to individual circumstances making some better and others worse off, you may create some additional incentive not to take a job, ... But to a first approximation everyone will have the same amount of money available.
Often the incentive to take a job would be better under Basic Income as there's so many cliff edge benefits that phase out quickly as you work/earn more in the current system.
Fair point, but that could also be solved by better benefit structures, but admittedly most likely at the cost of more bureaucracy.
Especially on the low income side that is often linked with job insecurity a basic income can relieve stress and pressure on people.
I am not disputing that a basic income may make peoples' lives easier, my point is just that a basic income does - to a first approximation - not provide additional money.
"feel like" ?
(None of it was possible. We haven't gotten the purported DOGE dividend, or tarriff refunds. Though the $500 Obamacare 'refunds' are in the works and the soldiers all got some $1776 bonus... and everyone's suddenly privately funding the Trump accounts as a bribe to him, I guess.)
If you don't like calling them "Trump Accounts", you can call them 530A accounts (that's the "real" name). They're actually a really great thing. Aside from the free money being given to babies by rich folk, they enable any American family to do something for their kids that wealthy business owners have been doing but you can't.
Seriously, just call it a 530A and smile.