> With a basic income, we can reduce spending by abolishing all social assistance
I would love to see the numbers that show a no-questions-asked basic income would be cheaper than the present social assistance monies.
There are a lot of logistics here. How do we prove you did not already get your check? What about those without mailing addresses. Or ID's? Is the basic income adjusted for families of 1 vs 7?
This idea of a minimalist ruleset for financial assistance seems like it is great at first, but will inevitably just get more and more bloated (and costly) as you actually implement it.
>How do we prove you did not already get your check? What about those without mailing addresses. Or ID's? Is the basic income adjusted for families of 1 vs 7?
Most Nordic social democracies already know the answers to those questions. Basic income could be used to reduce spending. I advocate a basic income model which doesn't reduce countries to these countries, though.
From the article: "She found that only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less. Mothers with newborns stopped working because they wanted to stay at home longer with their babies, and teenagers worked less because they weren't under as much pressure to support their families".
To me that sounds like more adults would work, while those who have other obligations (childbearing) or goals (study, creative, startups) can focus on that.
I'm not saying it would be cheaper, but providing a guaranteed minimum to all adults, would remove the need for the other programs, saving THAT money. It would not pay for it completely. Removing the government jobs that oversee most of the selection and verification (fact checking if the person is pursuing offers) could be eliminated. This could also save money. Again not enough, but enough to help sigificantly.
> There are a lot of logistics here.
Absolutely. We need to take risks for rewards though, and there must be a way to test this without hurting the whole economy, but we need to all agree to take that risk before we work on the next step.
> How do we prove you did not already get your check?
Great question. My guess would be you only provide one per person per period. Any duplications would be search for via software, then again by a human. Any proven duplication will be deducted. Rinse and repeat, minimal bureaucracy. The government always pays me/requires me to pay them every year, but even though its not perfect, it works for the most part.
> Is the basic income adjusted for families of 1 vs 7?
In my mind it would be a set amount per adult. The argument that we need to provide more for larger families creates odd and sad circumstances of child farms and generational welfare homes. People need to start becoming responsible for their families. We'd still have child services. Besides, this shouldn't be comfortable for a single mother living alone who isn't working. These people can get family or charity to help them, not taxes. It SHOULD be comfortable for a single mother working 15 hours a week though, which would help a lot of people out there.
> This idea of a minimalist ruleset for financial assistance seems like it is great at first, but will inevitably just get more and more bloated (and costly) as you actually implement it.
Well, you could argue are current system will only get more bloated and costly as well (which is has). A major reform is necessary eventually, and this is an innovative and modern potential solution we should SERIOUSLY investigate past talking and move towards researching through small implementations.
As a side note, lest anyone be confused by confusing namings, "Mincome" is indeed a "Basic Income" program, which is distinct from "Minimum Income" programs (which work differently, and which I don't support).
I would love to see the numbers that show a no-questions-asked basic income would be cheaper than the present social assistance monies.
There are a lot of logistics here. How do we prove you did not already get your check? What about those without mailing addresses. Or ID's? Is the basic income adjusted for families of 1 vs 7?
This idea of a minimalist ruleset for financial assistance seems like it is great at first, but will inevitably just get more and more bloated (and costly) as you actually implement it.