Would you be willing to trade entitlement spending for a guaranteed minimum income?

[Recursion]

This started out as a straw poll among my conservative friends and they were surprisingly open to the idea, even if it ended up costing more.

I started this post as a poll but I've changed my mind; this requires more long-form answers than a poll can give. I've divided entitlement spending into four rubrics. You may disagree with my choice of rubrics, and if so, I'd love to see your thoughts on that too.

Section I: In-kind benefits

* SNAP
* Section 8

Section II: Health-care benefits (possibly a subset of Section I, but what the hell)

* Medicare
* Medicaid
* Tricare/VA
* Federally-Qualified Health Centers

Section III: Cash benefits

* Unemployment Insurance (this is a weird middle ground between cash and in-kind; not sure where it belongs)
* Student loan subsidies (ditto)
* Home mortgage deduction (aka "The Mortgage Mandate", also ditto)
* Social Security
* SSI
* SSDI
* TANF
* Farm subsidies

Section IV: "negative tax" subsidies

* The minimum wage
* The EITC

What, if any, of those would you be willing to stop for a guaranteed minimum income? (Obviously, it matters how much that income is, too, and especially how it's indexed. Feel free to elaborate.)

[TransitJohn]

1. A guaranteed income at three times

the currently defined poverty level, semi-annually adjusted for COLA inflation in everything (no excluding exhorbitant rents and mortgage prices), sure.

[Recursion]

4. For literally all of them? (nt)

Note that I included SCHIP. Your way allows alcoholic parents to drink away all of their money and leave their children without health insurance.

[JVS]

2. No. I think guaranteed minimum income is a bad idea.

[Recursion]

3. I'm curious why

I'm not trolling or baiting, I actually haven't heard many arguments against it and I would like to.

[Victor_c3]

17. I know I'm butting myself into someone else's conversation here

but I provided my reasons for not supporting it in a response in post number 16.

[JVS]

21. Two answers, one half-joking and one serious.

1. This plan is not that dissimilar from Milton Friedman's idea of negative income tax (below a certain level gets paid from the state), and anything supported by him should be viewed with the utmost of skepticism.

2. Rent, utilities, and groceries will increase prices to eat up any gains poor people see from a basic guaranteed income.

[CFLDem]

54. I agree with you.

And I didn't think about your second point.

[Victor_c3]

16. That is my feeling as well

I understand where the proponents are coming from, but I don't believe a guaranteed minimum income is a good idea as well.

My thoughts go right to what I saw when I visited Qatar - an oil rich country that gave citizens of the country shares of the oil profits. If you are a citizen of the country, you receive enough money from the government that you don't have to work. Menial jobs are filled by guest workers (most of whom appeared to me to be Philippine in origin). So, in effect, you create a two tiered society where roughly 25% of the people living in the country are well-to-do citizens and the rest are poor guest workers.

I believe that many proponents of a minimum income say "well, if crappy employers want to have employees work their crappy jobs that they'd have to pay them more money". I don't believe that would be the case. They'd just hire guest workers to do those crappy jobs for shit wages. None of the larger social problems of people living in poverty in our nation would be solved. We would just shift the poverty from citizens to non-citizens of our country and end up with the same instabilities in our society.

I think the better overall answer would be to force companies to pay their workers more and to offer more/better benefits. Unemployment benefits should still exist and be robust enough to allow people to scrape by better than they do now, but the incentive to drive people to work needs to be there by offering them better wages.

I might get flamed for this, but I believe that some people deserve to make more money than others. However, that doesn't mean that the woman who serves me lunch at McDonalds or the guy that picks up my garbage shouldn't be able to live a halfway decent life where they work 40 hours a week, have full health benefits, and be able to afford a two week vacation with their kids to Disneyland a once or twice during their childhood.

[theboss]

34. You basically become Rome at that point

With a huge underclass of serfs serving an entitled citizenry. It's not a good system.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

35. I too believe that

"some people deserve to make more money than others."

I think people who do very dangerous jobs, or very disgusting ones, should be paid more than those who do safer, less disgusting jobs. So firefighters, police, and trash guys deserve to be higher paid than white collar office workers and executives.

[Victor_c3]

39. I mostly agree with that too

I would also throw in people who invest a significant amount of time and training to get a certain occupation. A surgeon for example usually is 30-35 years old before they finish their schooling and their residencies before they actually perform a surgery on their own.

In agreeing with you, there is a huge difference between people who actually perform work of value that contribute to our society and those who live off of the fat and make money manipulating commodities, financial markets, and investments.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

44. Well, I tend to think you invest the time

you want into a field - I've got something like 16 years of college under my belt, but I don't expect any higher pay than any other nurse with my level of actual in-field care. And I'd take a salary cut from even base nurse pay, if I was working in a facility that flattened the pay scales to pay the support staff like housekeeping better.

So rather than high pay for people who spent a lot of money on a given profession, maybe the corporation should take over college debt tied to that job. Don't pay the surgeon enormous salaries, but do take over his college debt, and malpractice insurance, as well as paying him a lower salary. (That would also help rein in the enormous amounts we spend on healthcare.)

[postulater]

5. To each according to what the 1% allow,

From each according to what the 1% demand?

[canoeist52]

6. I would trade all these if a free national health plan were to be instituted.

We couldn't afford un-forseen health emergencies on a guaranteed minimum income.

[Recursion]

7. Wow. I wouldn't go that far. But I grant the reasoning.

I'm saying at least anecdotally this is something we have room to work with on the right.

[eShirl]

12. Medicare For All too wild for you?

wilder than a minimum guaranteed income?

[Recursion]

14. Suppose that were a choice

Would you rather have a guaranteed cash benefit or a guaranteed in-kind health insurance benefit?

[eShirl]

22. What if that's a choice between dialysis and groceries?

either way I'd be dead within weeks.

[Recursion]

26. And people do in fact die, sometimes

I'm asking which of the two you would prefer.

[eShirl]

32. Which death would I find preferable, in other words?

Not sure it really matters.

[eShirl]

11. This.

[Chan790]

19. That's insane.

I'm sorry, I'd love a free national health plan...


but not enough to surrender:

Section I: In-kind benefits

* SNAP
* Section 8

Section II: Health-care benefits (possibly a subset of Section I, but what the hell)

* Medicare
* Medicaid
* Tricare/VA
* Federally-Qualified Health Centers

Section III: Cash benefits

* Unemployment Insurance (this is a weird middle ground between cash and in-kind; not sure where it belongs)
* Student loan subsidies (ditto)
* Home mortgage deduction (aka "The Mortgage Mandate", also ditto)
* Social Security
* SSI
* SSDI
* TANF
* Farm subsidies

Section IV: "negative tax" subsidies

* The minimum wage
* The EITC

[WinkyDink]

8. False dichotomies here. Notice you've omitted "Raising taxes on the 1%."

[DebJ]

9. So what happens to those who are disabled and can't work?

You get rid of some of these support programs because those who ARE working
might not need them, and then what happens to those who can't work, or
who are laid off?

Increasing minimum incomes, if done to a sufficiently high level, would automatically
bump people off of SNAP and Section 8, Medicaid assistance, and EITC. So those are moot points.

Why do you even mention unemployment insurance? Maybe I don't understand what guaranteed
minimum income means? Do you mean you get the income from the government whether you
work or not?

Getting rid of SSI? Are you kidding me? Or what kind of minimum income are you talking about?
Pension programs are dying, dead, and gone.

I guess I need more info here!

[TheKentuckian]

13. Minimum income is not minimum wage. Working isn't how you get it but rather citizenship

[DebJ]

15. The right wing would never, ever buy this.... they don't think anyone should get

'a free lunch'.... not even babies and children.

[Recursion]

18. That's why there's a minimum income

I don't understand your problem; the minimum income idea was developed to address exactly those points.

[DebJ]

20. I didn't understand the concept that one gets the income even if they

simply just don't feel like working. Kind of mind-boggling.

[Recursion]

25. Why? Why should everybody work?

Is there some stack of widgets going unmade that absolutely need to be made? Are we fighting a two-ocean war and I missed it?

[DebJ]

42. That's a thought -provoking question. Intriguing. I like it.

Mostly I like it in a Utopian fashion, though, that would require a massive restructuring
of the world and wealth that never, ever, ever could happen. And your idea does not
incorporate that. On a Utopian level, where we could create a world from scratch, that
is most intriguing.

I have a son on social supports and the system sucks and he is locked into poverty, so I certainly
am not happy with the status quo. I certainly don't support those who would eliminate all food
stamps and other supports. I'm not one who buys welfare queen stories either. Whenever
I see a FB post with that crap I always ask them to show me who or where. When they say
they know someone cheating the system, than I say report them for that, and if you do not,
then YOU are the problem, you are an accomplice, you are allowing this. And all the while
I don't believe their claims, or don't believe they really know that person's situation.

I think that most people would prefer to contribute to the world in some fashion. I was a
manager for about 25 years and this was my guiding management principle. For a large
majority of people, this is true, even if the jobs they hold aren't ones they find otherwise
fulfilling....which frankly is most of the world. There are a good number of jobs no one would
want, period, but that fulfill basic functions needed in this world and someone has to do them.

Nonetheless, I have experienced the following:
I guess you've never been involved in a group project at work or school where a small portion of the
group does all the work and the rest just drink coffee, tell jokes, and avoid any effort whatsoever.
Unfortunately I've been there many times. There is no doubt that this portion of the world would
be quite happy to never expend any effort whatsoever on anything but eat, drink and be merry, and
I would have issues supporting them just as I had when I had to watch them get the credit for MY
work and efforts while they didn't do anything at all. My husband is one of those people, too. He
has worked steadily the last 30 years of his life, until forced into retirement by illness, but every single
day he begrudged the need of going to work...and for 25 years, his job was actually easy and fun.
But given the chance, he would never, ever, ever do anything for anyone other than himself, unless
extreme boredom or social isolation forced him to do so...like, one day a year. That's it. He would
completely preoccupy himself with playing games and the like. Why should anyone else have to do
a job when he would not?

[Recursion]

47. Why would you "have issues"?

I guess you've never been involved in a group project at work or school where a small portion of the
group does all the work and the rest just drink coffee, tell jokes, and avoid any effort whatsoever.
Unfortunately I've been there many times. There is no doubt that this portion of the world would
be quite happy to never expend any effort whatsoever on anything but eat, drink and be merry, and
I would have issues supporting them just as I had when I had to watch them get the credit for MY
work and efforts while they didn't do anything at all.

Why on earth do you "have issues" with that?

Was that part of school such a scarring experience that you can't bear to see it repeated in adult life?

Really?

Why on earth should an unnecessary number of people be working at any given time?

Again, what widgets are going unmade right now that you think desperately need to be made? What are we actually short of?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

31. The problem we currently face

is that there simply aren't even enough jobs for people who DO want to work.

Unless you want to simply let unemployed people die for lack of food, shelter, healthcare, then you do still end up paying for them. This sounds more like a suggestion to wrap a bunch of different programs that already spend money on such people into a single program.

If you want more people doing worthwhile work, and the private sector doesn't have jobs for them, and it offends you to simply give people who 'don't feel like working' money, then create jobs for them. Give them the money, but give them some work to do in exchange for it, in the same area in which they live.

The whole reason we have so many people who have given up on finding work is that the private sector isn't creating the jobs we need for them. The government needs to step up and create jobs to give people in return for the money they're already going to get.

[Recursion]

48. Why give them work in exchange? Do you really think you'll find more worthwhile things to do

than they will?

Seriously. It's not like people become drones once they get a livable income; they start to actually do things that matter to them. And they probably know better what their community could use than you do.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

50. At least offer them the opportunity.

Do I know best what jobs I'm skilled enough for? Yes. Am I able to find such on my own? So far, no. Hundreds of job apps, no job.

I am not really saying 'conscript' people. I'm saying bloody well create jobs, directly. Don't rely on indirect methods to 'incentivize' private sector job creation.

[Recursion]

51. Wait. If you're giving out a minimum income, people don't need "jobs" anymore.

They will do "tasks" they find worthwhile doing. I respectfully suggest their choice of tasks will be more socially beneficial than any centrally-constructed list would be.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

33. It seems to me that it would have to be a given

that the 'minimum income' would at least be as high as the totals of the benefits it replaces. It's no deal if you scrap 8 programs that people use to give them one program that provides less in total than those it replaced. But if you simply turned those 8 programs into 1, and gave everyone the same benefits they got before, only in a single form, you get rid of a lot of government duplication of efforts in maintaining and running all of those different programs.

That's why I'd be open to combining defined benefit programs, but not replace programs that give highly variable benefits, such as health care with a 'defined benefit'. That's simply the Ryan 'voucherization' of health care insurance.

[DebJ]

43. That certainly sounds like a winner. My son is 'in the system'

which is a most incredible patch-work nightmare. Coordination is a real nightmare.
And very, very expensive to maintain the inefficiences.

[DanTex]

10. Without going into too many details...

I would probably say "yes" provided that
1) the minimum income was large enough, and
2) everybody had access to healthcare (somehow)

[Orsino]

23. Guaranteed minimum income is the whole point of the social safety net.

Since money has been redefined as speech, and speech is still called a right, the syllogism is a compelling one.

Today's Right will just call it a permanent welfare state, as though that's a bad thing.

[grahamhgreen]

28. Nice logic.

[Bluenorthwest]

24. Never trade money without stated figures. Also, this is a false set of choices in

many ways. The Swiss are considering a $2,800 minimum income and they are not 'trading away' other things as part of that process, so why should we do so?
Some of the things you list are programs for those beneath the poverty level, with the Swiss figures, no one qualifies at all. SSI, Sec 8, Snap, Medicaid would have no qualified beneficiaries under the Swiss model any way, so without making any 'trade' there are still savings.
Unemployment Insurance is paid for via payroll taxes, which would not be collected if there was no such benefit. They are not a 'mix of cash and in kind' they are fully taxable cash income. To receive them, one has to generate sufficient work time and income in the previous year. Can't see at all why employers should get a tax break and employees lose income because of a separate program.
Also do not see what Minimum Wage has to do with this concept at all, again it seems to be a break for employers for no reason at all, such a cut would not increase the coffers that pay the minimum income.
Health care needs do not vanish at $2.800 a month. That's not even enough to live on in many cities. I know people who make six figs who need and keep health insurance because they could have expenses that would eat up all the savings and income, hence they are insured. So rather than end all health care programs, we'd still want and need a universal health care system. The Swiss have one.
Your list is basically a bunch of things the right dislikes, not associated with the question on the table.
Particularly egregious is the idea of ending the VA. Very ugly and again, beside the entire point.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

30. I'm not sure it's as 'false' a set of choices as you suggest.

Some of the things you list are programs for those beneath the poverty level, with the Swiss figures, no one qualifies at all. SSI, Sec 8, Snap, Medicaid would have no qualified beneficiaries under the Swiss model any way, so without making any 'trade' there are still savings.

If no one can qualify for a program, you're obviously going to be shuttering a program that does nothing. So by changing things so no one will ever qualify for a program, you are essentially 'trading away' that program.

[Bluenorthwest]

36. Listing things that would be made redundant by improvements as 'traded away'

is not accurate language. There is no exchange or trade involved. There is not one side making a concession to the other in exchange for a desired outcome, there is simply a change to other law.
The health care issue is a false choice, as a minimum income does not cover health care needs, wealthy people carry insurance for a reason. Ending programs such as the ACA subsidies, Medicare and the VA would cause people to spend a large portion of their minimum income on health insurance alone, or they would do without which is what we just corrected.
Eradicating the minimum wage for work is an absurd idea which is in philosophy and in result the opposite of what is sought via a minimum income. Employers gain bargain workers while they give nothing in return, again not a trade at all. Unemployment insurance is also paid by the employer, who would also gain if it was eradicated while giving nothing in return, again that's not a trade it is a gift to employers. For no return at all.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

37. I think the minimum income would define the minimum wage.

After all, who is going to take a job that pays less than the minimum income?

(Actually strike that, suddenly you are moving into Qatar territory - no citizen would take such a job, but 'guest workers' would be completely exploitable. You'd have to deliberately set the minimum wage to equal the minimum income.)

And yes, in my other comments I make the same points you do against including healthcare or other 'variable' benefits in any trade for a defined benefit.

[Recursion]

49. Sorry that seems not accurate; I literally meant it in that sense

As the minimum income goes up, the qualifying persons for those entitlement programs goes down. How much of that would one be willing to get rid of?

As I said, this means if someone takes their minimum income and doesn't buy their kid food or health insurance, there's no SCHIP or SNAP to step in to fix it.

[grahamhgreen]

27. Guaranteed income, housing, & healthcare. Cheaper than prison.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

29. Certainly not for all of them.

Some of them, such as healthcare costs, could likely outstrip any possible guaranteed minimum year's income in a single hospitalization event.

But you could certainly fold a bunch of those disparate programs, credits, etc into a single department that would require far less bureaucracy and paperwork if you went the 'guaranteed' route. It would replace the need for SNAP, UI and social security (since, by definition you're unemployed after retirement) (Although, come to think of it, that would screw over 'double dippers' who retire, then immediately get hired back on to another or even the same job.).

I'd be willing to trade the home mortgage deduction away in a heartbeat.

Basically, I'd be willing to trade away multiple programs that already provide fixed benefits for a single program that likewise provides a fixed benefit, but not trade away programs that provide more resources in catastrophic cases for a fixed benefit that will leave people out to hang in the event of a catastrophic event.

Shrink duplication of efforts, provide people with greater flexibility on how to spend money they are given by the government.

[LuvNewcastle]

38. I would support it if included with single-payer healthcare.

It would simplify so many things, like the tax system. If you only make the minimum, you don't pay taxes. Anything over the minimum, you pay taxes on it. There would be no need for Social Security or Unemployment or any of the poverty programs, provided that the minimum is tied to inflation and kept at a high enough amount. If you combine min. income with single-payer healthcare, I think it would be a simple way to raise the overall standard of living.

[Xyzse]

40. Only if there is a corresponding Maximum income and all of this as adjusted to inflation.

[mainer]

41. A bad illness could easily exceed ANY guaranteed income

You never know if you'll come down with leukemia and need a bone marrow transplant.

So no, a guaranteed income wouldn't be enough; you'd also need healthcare insurance.

[MO_Moderate]

45. No, people are not responsible enough

and we would end right back with entitlement spending.

[TwilightGardener]

46. No. Too many people would just sit and do nothing if their basic needs

were guaranteed to be met indefinitely, if you're talking about a handout unrelated to work. They would learn to live at their government-provided means instead of striving for more. Productivity would go down, innovation would go down, less people would get educated and develop worthwhile skills. I am of the mind that a strong safety net is a must to help people through crises and recessions, but it must be temporary--just enough to get them back on their feet and working again.

[Fumesucker]

55. Those who innovate are often driven by something other than a desire for money

Most of those I meet who I consider really intelligent and innovative aren't doing what they do because it will make them more money, they do it because they have a burning desire to do whatever it is they do.

Nikola Tesla was one of the most brilliant innovators in the history of technology and yet he died all but penniless because he wasn't focused on the money but rather on his truly amazing vision.

People like Tesla are going to innovate come hell or high water, the money is purely secondary if it's even a consideration at all, such people cannot keep from innovating.

On the other hand the people I meet who are focused almost entirely on the money are boring and shallow to me, they have no vision beyond collecting an ever larger pile of cash and have no vision beyond that of Scrooge McDuck swimming in his money bin.

[Liberty Belle]

52. No. What happens when you can't work anymore if your money is gone? Here's how it could be lost.

I've worked my whole life and until recently earned well over minimum wage, though wasn't rich. But we couldn't keep our savings, it's all gone due mostly to various medical emergencies that insurance didn't cover.

An income now will not support you in your golden years - and it can be taken for other reasons. What if you lose a lawsuit? Need to help your children through college or some disaster of their own? Are a victim of a natural disaster, or a theft where your money is stolen? People NEED Social Security, guaranteed.

Same with those other benefits. If you lose your hard-earned money for any reason and find yourself out of work, you still need unemployment and food stamps/SNAP. Farmers earn far more than minimum wage already in good years but during drought or disaster need help to survive.

Medicare/Medicaid is a must in today's era of soaring healthcare costs, a guaranteed income isn't going to cover costs cancer treatments or surgeries!

[DiverDave]

53. NO

Sounds like defeat to me.