Thursday, January 30, 2014

It's Fair, But Is It Just?


I came across a really provocative piece in last Sunday's New York Times Magazine. In an article entitled,  "Take One Income, Please" Annie Lowrey describes a movement that is growing in Europe to establish a guaranteed minimum wage for all citizens.

While this may seem like the ultimate liberal solution to the problem of poverty, I was amazed to learn that the great intellectual guru of the right, Charles Murray, has supported a similar idea in his new book, In Our Hands: A Plan to Replace the Welfare State  (There's an interesting review of this book on the Crooked Timber blog).  Murray's main objective, of course, is to completely undo the entire apparatus and rationale for the modern welfare state, so liberals might be tempted to dismiss him off-hand.  But this would be a mistake, because I think that the idea has some merits that might actually bridge the great chasm that divides liberals and conservatives.

What Murray proposes is indeed to completely eradicate all government welfare programs.  In their place, he proposes giving $10,00 a year to every American citizen over 21 years old ($3,000 of which would have to be used to buy health insurance). 

The objection that can be raised to this idea is that some--perhaps many--of the citizens who receive this guaranteed income will spend it foolishly and will actually be worse off than they would be under our current paternalistic system.  While I would agree that there will always be those Americans  who would squander whatever funds are given to them on gambling, alcohol, drugs, or any other number of vices, I think that a guaranteed minimum income would have the opposite effect: it would unleash the entrepreneurial spirit that most Americans have and give them the capital they need to take control over their own lives.  No longer would the poor be the passive beneficiaries of governmental largesse, but rather could decide for themselves how their own money would be spent.

I think that the main reason why this idea appeals to me so much is that, as I get older, I'm beginning to question whether it's in the interest of human beings to be subject to an all-powerful, all-knowing entity like government that controls such a huge amount of our collective wealth.  We've seen plenty of evidence recently that our government often  can't  be trusted to use the funds that it confiscates from citizens wisely or fairly.   Our tax dollars, rather than benefiting ordinary citizens, more often than not seems to be used to prop up the military industrial complex and to line the coffers of multinational corporations. 

Perhaps my libertarian friends are right:  the very kind of massive, all-intrusive governments that we've established during the post war period may very well be part of the reason why middle class Americans (and Europeans for that matter) find their economic positions becoming eroded and their civil liberties deteriorating.

The idea of a guaranteed minimum income certainly meets the condition for fairness.  The question is whether a system like this would create greater justice and equality or just produce even more poverty and desperation among the most vulnerable Americans.



87 comments:

  1. I don't think that the current welfare system we have in the US is in trouble. When it's funded properly, the system actually works quite well. The problem is that conservatives like Murray do all they can to kill off these programs, and the poor wind up suffering.

    I think the idea of a guaranteed minimum wage may be a good one, but in addition to, not in place of, the programs for the poor that we currently have in place.

    Amy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that the idea of guaranteed income is a good idea, however, I feel that with this system, many people will see it as a complete sense of security and therefore they would lose the incentive to work. There is also the factor of spending the money wisely that does not seem to sit well with me. I am 50-50 on this.

      Delete
  2. I agree with you that our current system is so dysfunctional that just about anything would be better than what we have now. The problem is that this idea is bound to annoy both liberals as well as conservatives, so it's unlike to gain any traction in the US.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Milton Friedman came up with a similar idea - the "negative income tax". His argument was that if you were going to have a welfare sate, this would be the fairest and most productive kind.

    It's a dream though, because liberals would have to accept the idea that if people blew their check on dumb thing, they'd be reliant on private charity after that - not on the4 government..

    Friedman on the idea:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM

    ReplyDelete
  4. The minimum income plan is less just then our original plan because if you give people $10,000 to spend it’s going to make them less determined to go out and look for a job and work. Its effort in trying to help people overcome their poverty is a nice gesture but you don’t know whether or not people are going to spend it for the right reasons. You could potentially be giving drug users thousands of dollars for their drug addiction instead of them using it to feed their family. Although there are many families out there that would use it for good, the people that spend it on useless things are the ones that ruin it for everyone.
    The overall idea of this would work to our advantage though. It would get rid of all the unnecessary plans the government has and instead replace them with just one overall plan. If used correctly the poor might not be living extravagant lives but would be out of their poverty troubles. It would feed many families and has the potential to help our economy as a whole if everyone used the money what it is meant for and nothing else.
    - Bridget Brosnan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you, Bridget. It's always the ones who do the bad things that ruin it for everyone. I also agree with you that the overall idea would work, but it needs to be more specified. It can't just be a $10,000 cash that people can spend on anything they want. It really should be spent towards bills, housing, food, etc.

      Delete
    2. I agree with the both of you. This plan is a good idea that could help the US but they're people who will abuse it.
      - Bobby

      Delete
    3. I also agree they should have stricter requirements. Instead of giving this money to people whom “have a pulse”, they should have to past a drug test giving every couple of months and a mental illness test. That way we can all have a little more faith and insurance that the money is being used in a beneficial way and not being pissed away.

      Delete
  5. I feel that many people in the US who receive benefits take advantage of the system. Not all, but many. Many people are receiving food stamps and other benefits in place of getting a job. Giving everyone this same "mincome" would be a fairer way of giving out benefits. It gives everyone a more equal opportunity.

    I also believe that there is a downside to this though. It is the same as people abusing food stamps and benefits instead of getting jobs. We all know $10,000 is not even remotely close to enough money to really live off of, but I really think people would try. The bigger question is, how would they fund this kind of system? Taking from the poor seems to be a trend. So, would they continue to do so? And if so, that would generate more poverty than do any good for anyone.

    I don't necessarily agree with your statement that this "would unleash the entrepreneurial spirit that most Americans have and give them the capital they need to take control over their own lives." The government would only give $10,000, $3,000 of which goes straight to health care.. Not saying a yearly "no strings attached" $10,000 isn't a lot of money but what can anyone really do with the left over $7,000? Sure, it could give them a little money to start up, but not enough.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I totally agree with you. I just wanted to add that when you said "We all know $10,000 is not even remotely close to enough money to really live off of, but I really think people would try" you are so on the spot because lets say you have a family of 5, where they are all over the age of 21, that's already $50,000 if you put it together. So no, you most probably can not live off of 10 grand, and 50 grand for 5 people is also cutting it close, but it is certainly possible.

      Delete
    2. Like I said in my paragraph I agree 100% that people will abuse this plan and ruin good opportunities for the people that would do good with it. -Bridget

      Delete
  6. I agree with the fact that the current system we have now, the welfare system is a little bit flawed and defective. Maybe in fact it is time to change to another system like the one spoken about above where there would be a set income to all breathing citizens over 21 years old. My issue with that though is when you give people money instead of food stamps where the people need to use those just on food, people will use the money for anything they want- which could be anything including gambling, or unnecessary spendings.
    I have a friend who loves to help the homeless. However whenever she sees a homeless person instead of giving them some loose change or some small bills, she buys them a bagel or a sandwich. She believes it's more beneficial to give them a nice meal even if it's small, than to give them money where they might spend it on cigarettes or drugs or something they don't need. But at the same time, people generally prefer to receive money rather than let's say food stamps. Think about it for a second- it's your birthday... Would you rather get a check that you can spend on whatever you want? Maybe a new pair of shoes or a new outfit for your birthday party? Or would you rather receive the ugly scarf you will never wear or the gift card to the store you will never step foot into.
    I also want to add that if everyone will be receiving this money, the rich and the poor, I don't think people will work as hard and will start to slack off a little knowing that no matter what they will still be getting the 10 grand in the mail. And the American people are already lazy enough (my generation with all the technology we have is definitely lazy). But I do think that this system instead of the current welfare system can in time help with the poverty issues we face.
    Joelle Harari

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with what you said about how people would spend the money on whatever they want instead of things that they would actually need. I also think that if they were given that income it would become a cycle and they would just spend that money on things that were useless. Though I do think that people would put that money to good use, and put it in savings or use it to pay off some bills. We can't always think about the people that won't use he money for their own good, we need to think about the people that will use this money to jump start ideas or a company and how those people would better the economy in the long run. People are money hungry and if they have money to do something that could potentially make them more money I think they would jump on that opportunity and not become lazy.

      Delete
  7. The idea is a good one, but it should be combined with the current welfare system, giving the poor more money to spend on themselves. Of course some people will not spend the money in a smart way, such as drugs, but for others it will get them through a year of living more comfortably then they are now. I also like the fact that the money would be distributed to everyone 21 and up, not excluding the middle and upper class.
    Although this plan may backfire and create more laziness, for some it will save their lives. No more poor people living on the streets, or families just getting by with nine to five jobs for supporting their children. With this, they can ease up with work for a little, and enjoy life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with this, completely. Furthermore, I think that while some people will squander their checks, I think that most people will feel more in control of their lives and will therefore use it in good health. The only problem I see here is that inflation may occur, spiking prices in the market to an all time high. So perhaps the money they receive will not retain the same value as it holds now. But that is why I agree that these two systems should be used in conjunction with each other and one shouldn't necessarily replace the other.

      -Allison Turner

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  8. The proposed idea of giving $10,000 a year to every American citizen over 21 years old would be less than the system that we currently have in place. It is understandable that the research done by Evelyn Forget, the health economist at the University of Manitoba, showed that poverty disappeared and that other factors such as high school completion rates improved but that doesn’t take care of the abuse and negativity that may come along with this plan of basically just giving out money too all.
    The idea itself is a good one, however maybe some research should either be done before and look into the people who actually show they deserve it; like families or those who are in homeless shelters or rehab facilities that are looking to actually change their lives for the better. Or even after the year has gone by to check in on everybody and see who has been using it for the better or worse. There are always those who ruin the good for everybody and use it for their selfish needs. This whole thing may either follow the research and make system grow into a better place or bring it down into more laziness and insufficiency.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with what you are saying! I think that it is definitely a smart idea to research further into the people who actually deserve the $10,000. And, even better, checking up on each individual who received the money from time to time would ensure that they are using it for the right reasons. Like I also said in my response, there are always those few people who have to ruin the chances of celebrating a good thing for the rest of us. I believe that with some changes in criteria, the system like the one in Switzerland can work here in America.

      -Melissa Comis

      Delete
  9. I agree that this system would lessen the level of government control over citizens. A large part of why our economic positions are deteriorating is the control over wealth by our system of government, but perhaps guaranteed minimum income shouldn’t necessarily replace the programs that the lower class and the working poor has available to them. Perhaps we should have a guaranteed minimum income alongside the programs that exist.
    What about those working folks who are slightly above the poverty line, and/or don’t meet the criteria for this guaranteed income? What if they miss the mark by 100$ per year? These people should have something available to them to assist them through hard times, as well. Assistance should not be removed from the people who need it, and as well, guaranteed minimum income would serve to replenish citizens with some of the power lost to government control of wealth. One system should not necessarily replace the other.

    Allison Turner

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the idea of giving 10,000 dollars to every American over the age of 21 is a beneficial idea. With 3,000 dollars going to health insurance, people would be guaranteed treatment when they are not feeing their best without depending on anyone else to be there for them. Then with the left over 7,000 dollars the motivated people will go out and spend or invest it wisely making them more wealthy and independent in the future. Even though not all investments work out, I think it gives people the opportunity they want and that is all people want at the end of day, a chance to do what they want to make a living.
      I do agree with the idea that was brought up in the article however. The idea that many people will abuse the money and not spend it wisely but I think either way those kind of people will end of doing what they want anyway. It won't make a difference so why not give everyone over 21 $10,000 to spend maybe it will give opportunities to people that usually wouldn't get the chance to have a breakthrough and make the world a better place.

      Vijay Racktoo

      Delete
    2. Also, those who abuse it and form a record of their behavior, would not be eligible for the next year's assistance. So perhaps this is a way to eventually weed out those who will abuse the program!

      Allison Turner

      Delete
  10. The proposed idea would be more just than the one we have already because it would give people the opportunity to have a safety net of money. Some people wouldn't have to rely on food stamps and home vouchers. When people would receive this money they would be able to focus on other things and could be able to pursue certain dreams that they wouldn't be able to do without this money. Also people who were lazy may have some motivation to actually do something with that money but I do think that there will always be those people to waste the money on drugs and not use it to their full advantage.

    This idea is also practical because the money would lower the poverty rate and if the poverty rate was lowered then people could have the opportunity to do things to make themselves happy and the welfare of the people would be better. Though I am not sure as to where the government would get the money to give to the people and that is my main concern with this proposed idea. People also wouldn't be able to rely on this money completely they would still have to have a job. People would also need to know how to use this money to their advantage and not use this money on petty items like an extremely expensive pair of shoes that they wouldn't be able to afford before they received the $10,000. People would probably learn the hard way though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you that probably at first people would spend money on unnecessary but within time, they would see whats really important and needed in life. Also maybe this would be a sort of boost for someone to go find a job to earn some more money and spend it more freely.

      Delete
  11. The idea that Switzerland would like to pay people for being alive is just foolish and impractical. Schmidt tells us “not to think about it for others, but think about it for themselves”. Yes that is nice who wouldn’t want an extra $7,000 in their pocket? The problem is I fear this money will end up in the hands on the wrong people. Money is power and when that power is abused and misused bad things are bound to occur.
    The idea of giving $7,000 to people “who have a pulse” sounds better then it really is. Yes on the outside this sounds like a better proposal than our current modern welfare state, however it could still be cleaned up and have stricter requirements. Instead of giving this money to people whom “have a pulse”, they should have to past a drug test giving every couple of months and a mental illness test. That way we can all have a little more faith and insurance that the money is being used in a beneficial way and not being pissed away.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with your point of you. So much money would definitely go to waste at some point in the hands of good people so it would do even worse in the hands of the wrong people. So much money could be abused. Giving drug tests would give a little more reassurance on who the money is being given to and that its being put to good use.

      Delete
    2. Who writes this "mental illness test"? Even moreso, why should someone with a mental illness be necessarily included or excluded from assistance? To say that the approval or denial of assistance should be based on mental health status is unjust, by nature. And what if someone who is not a drug user and passes the drug test obtains a government check and then becomes dependent on a substance? What about alcoholism? Alcohol wont show up on a test after 24 hours.
      The idea that these people are receiving assistance because they are "with a pulse" is flat out wrong. Sure, some people will take advantage, just like they take advantage of the systems in place currently. But what about the people who work hard and still can't make ends meet? They are certainly existing with more effort than just "having a pulse", do they not deserve the help they need because others might take advantage? Consider this: our class has to take a test. You studied your ass off, along with 16 other students. But the remainder of the class slacked off. Because they didn't study and failed as a result, your A+ gets thrown in the shredder. Is this just? Would you be okay with this? I certainly wouldn't, and I think we would all agree that this would not serve to promote any "greater good" of society.

      Allison Turner

      Delete
    3. This is exactly why I think it is a bad idea, I feel like yes at first people would appreciate it especially with the poor being happy and thankful but people can't just think about how beneficial it would be in the moment there should be a long term scope of this. In time it will become something expected and who knows what those people will do with it. I could just imagine them thinking how unfair their lives are consistently comparing theirs with the rich and desiring what they don't have instead of what they do. This will in turn will squander their money management on drugs possibly. Money is power and power will blockade the will of the good in the long run

      Delete
    4. @Allison Turner
      I wrote mental illness test but i was referring to a psychological test similar to the ones police men take before they get the job. I think there should definitely be some type of background check going on to see if there person is stable and in the right mind state....... Alcohol is legal (not saying that makes it ok) but that wouldn't be the drugs they would be looking for in the test.

      Delete
    5. "This will in turn will squander their money management on drugs possibly. Money is power and power will blockade the will of the good in the long run"

      OR it could act as a motivator. They likely desire what they don't have, already. But If given the opportunity, some people may use it to better their lives, and yes, some may squander it and expect it, but they will self destruct no matter what kind of assistance they receive, and to strip other deserving, working poor citizens of their chance to improve their lives in a significant way because it may be wasted on others just seems really unfair and unjust.

      Allison Turner

      Delete
    6. @Rondoee: But alcohol, like some illegal substances, is among the behaviors that could be a potential strain on the guaranteed minimum income system.

      "I think there should definitely be some type of background check going on to see if there person is stable and in the right mind state"

      Who determines the mind state that is "right" enough to receive assistance? The thing is, some people who are not in a "right mind state" probably NEED this assistance. Perhaps health insurance coverage would help get them back into the right mind state and therefore would put them on the path to becoming productive members of society. Greater good!

      Allison Turner

      Delete
    7. @Allison Turner
      Yes it could be a motivator your absolutely right. It will give people who never had an opportunity to be better their lives. You are 100% right I'm with you on that. But what about the people who are unmotivated and are just lazy sacks of shit? Do you think its just that they can just do nothing with there lives and still collect $10,000? Money should never just be handed out. It should be earned and well deserved. Regardless of all the rules and test and requirements we can come up with you and i both know that someone will still find a way to abuse this. I do believe this could do much good, however i think it could do just as much harm.

      Delete
    8. We ALREADY have unmotivated, lazy sacks of shit. It doesn't mean that we should rule out assistance to the working poor. The benefits could very well outweigh the risks, in this case, since the risks already are a reality in our existing form of government assistance. The kicker in guaranteed minimum income is that it will remove a great deal of power over wealth from the government, and placing some of that power back into the hands of the people. Why should hardworking people be bereft of assistance just because others may squander it? Additionally, why is it okay for the politicians and government officials who are approving/denying these programs go to the bank in their mercedes benz's to deposit their 500,000 dollar per year paychecks, while people who work just as hard and for longer hours take the bus to the bank to deposit their 200 dollar per week paychecks? Why is THIS acceptable in society over helping people through depressing, demotivating financial/life crises?

      Allison Turner

      Delete
  12. It goes without saying that the current welfare system we have now is flawed. I do agree that now is the time to try out a better system. However, I’m not too sure that the system that Switzerland has proposed would necessarily work here. Yes, this system would provide an equal opportunity to each (breathing) individual over 21 years of age, and be fairer way of giving out benefits. In time, a system due like such could help with the poverty problems. But, I believe that more people than not would unfortunately abuse and take advantage of this system. There's always someone who has to ruin it for the rest of us.
    So many Americans today are greedy and lazy. Giving people money, who genuinely need it, rather than food stamps to be used strictly for food, could be a recipe for disaster. Who knows what they could purchase with it? This just gives people the opportunity to be frivolous with their purchases, perhaps by going gambling, or buying drugs, alcohol, or even unnecessary food.
    I currently work in the bakery at Uncle Giuseppe’s in Massapequa. One night a customer came in, high, and tried to buy $75 worth of marzipan with his food stamp card. Should a person using food stamps really be buying $75 of candy in one shot, even if he had good intentions? People already take advantage of the current system in place.
    Additionally, I think implementing a system like the one in Switzerland would give Americans more of a reason to slack off and not work as hard, because they will get a check for $10,000 regardless. There could be an increase in the lack of motivation nationwide. Also, the issue of how the money would be raised in order to provide each American over 21 with $10,000 must be faced. Would taxes be raised? I think that if a system like this had any chance of being agreed on by all parties, and eventually of working in today’s society, the criteria would have to be tweaked a bit.

    -Melissa Comis

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you Melissa because the system we do have is flawed. And i also feel like if we started giving people money for doing nothing then they would become even more lazier and some would take advantage of this system.

      Delete
  13. This is a good idea that could help many people. Of course some people will abuse the money the get, but they're people who will use it wisely. There is a chance this plan could backfire and create more laziness, but for some it will save their lives.
    - Bobby

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree so much ! -Bridget

      Delete
    2. Well, I don't agree, because Bobby didn't develop his ideas enough. Where's his argument?

      Delete
  14. I disagree with the idea of minimum income because I believe that people will abuse the system when it comes to managing their money. When there is anything in abundance, according to supply and demand the larger the quantity something is in, the less value it has or less demand it has. In the same sense even though the overall program would be effective at first, after years of this program people will devalue it and use the money for their wants rather than their needs. Essentially food stamps and heating assistance programs that are installed right now , and they do give the poor what they need rather than what they want. If everyone had what they wanted in life there would be no strive , no will power and people would begin to demand this money in a sense of expecting it ! Government issues with how they necessarily spend our tax dollars can be dealt with another solution a direct vote out on not to use it in global wars and corporations, but I don't believe that the minimum income plan will subdue the governmental control issue in America.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you that people would abuse the system if that type of system was implemented by the government but I think either way people will find a way to take advantage of the government benefits. For example the food stamp. Either way people will try to beat the system so maybe giving the $10000 could help more than any other way. We can't trust the government with out tax money so if we have the money ourselves we could make differences ourselves.
      -Vijay Racktoo

      Delete
    2. Its a given that some people will use the money for things that are not a necessity but what about the other honest people and yes they still exsist, they could use this money to better themselves, their families and possibly America as a whole.

      Delete
    3. I agree with you as well. I believe that Americans as individuals use money for what they want and not the necessities that an actually help them survive. I believe that the poor should be supplied with what they need because like you said if they received everything they want, there would be no drive.

      Delete
  15. The proposed plan of providing basic income to citizens would benefit both the individuals and the economy. Having some sort of an income to those who are very poor would enable them to get a better job which then creates more income for better housing, food, and all the rest of the basic necessities of life. Stemming from this, individuals will live better lives and the advances on the society will benefit also. The middle class and upper class will also benefit from this because more advances can be made with their jobs. If individuals use the money in the right way instead of wasting it on useless things than the economy will benefit from it.
    With the current system, we have food stamps and housing vouchers. Those things can only be used for food and housing. With a basic income, the money can be used for more than just those two ways. The money can be used for schooling and careers and other things that will enable people to have successful careers and happy lives no longer fighting for their lives in poverty.

    Denise Redfern

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Denise, I agree with the points you made, especially about those citizens above the poverty line and those citizens in poverty being able to have more flexibility in their support.

      Besides those people who are most vulnerable in America, citizens in the middle and upper class would have a wonderful opportunity to benefit from basic income, as that basic income can be used to pay off outstanding debt, build credit, afford more, save more, and possibly invest that income to generate even more, elevating their statuses further. As for those in poverty with their basic income, they are presented with a blank slate for investment, and they have the power that they otherwise would not have in society: to choose what their they and their family need, as needs are different for different people. Knowing you have the ability to choose when your life confronts you with a slew of many difficult decisions is a psychological boost for sure and pays dividends (monetarily and socially) in the long run, becoming yet another benefit of a basic income system.


      -Max

      Delete
  16. If the U.S Government would put this system into affect there would be some problems. One problem would how would the government just give away ten grand to everyone in the U.S. Would they just print more money, which would lessen the value of our money or would the government increase the amount of taxes we already pay.

    Another problem would be how do we know people would spend their money wisely. People could spend on different vices like drugs, alcohol, or prostitution. Also if people were forced to pay at least $3000 on healthcare, some people would do it but others might not. Another problem is if the person wants to go to college then he or she would take out huge loans to pay off his tuition. Because the average cost for a college is $23000 a year. Then times that by four it equals $92000 plus if the person takes out loans, there are interest rates he or she would have to pay for. So in order for a person to pay for college this person would have to save up for 10 to 15 years if he has other bills to pay. And if the person tries to go for example a doctorate or law school, financial aid doesn't pay past four years of college.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This new system could definitely be very beneficial to the many Americans In need, however why only limit the age to 21 and over? It is clear that there will be Americans who will put the 10,000 dollars into positive actions, like providing for their families, paying bills, rent etc. Then of course, there will be people who spend the money in order to obtain desirable material things that they never had access to before and or to simply enable the addictions that could have led to their poverty.
    If this new system were to take flight in place of the current welfare system then the age should be lowered to minimum 18. This would definitely help the many Americans who tread along the poverty line. For example, this could allow a lot of people within the younger generations to have the opportunity of receiving a college education. This new system could have helped my family a lot because both my sister and I attend college. For my parents to have two children attend college around the same time frame came with tremendous sacrifices. If we were to be given the 10,000 dollars each the stress of affording college would not be such a serious issue.

    Jada Hayes

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Keep in mind that it is not an upfront 10K, it will likely be paid as any other job (monthly). Even though I disagree that a system like this would be beneficial to everyone (see comment below), however, I agree with you that it would be extremely helpful for college students because the price of education is ridiculous now, and in order to land a stable career, you must have a college degree this day in age. Honestly instead of creating this new system for everyone, why not gear it just towards college education, because this would almost be a form of prevention, in that we will be making college more affordable for all people, and with this education, people would be more likely to get stable careers and would be less likely to end up homeless. Actually a system like this should definitely be put in for people seeking education alone, and that would ensure that the money is being well spent.

      -Mike Schultz

      Delete
  18. Yes, I agree that there would be slight benefits to this system and might “unleash their creativity” and whatnot, and I especially agree that the government confiscates tax dollars and pointlessly spends it on unnecessary things that don’t help our citizens, but just boosts the nation’s militaristic and imperialistic tendencies as a world power. However, I believe that this system is greatly flawed and is almost a step towards communism (which has been proven to not work), where everyone gets paid the same amount despite productivity. Yes it will be an extra little boost in our wallets for those that work, which would be nice, however having that little extra bump in a capitalistic society like that of the United States is extraordinarily problematic, even catastrophic. Prices of goods will skyrocket as a result, otherwise known as inflation. Retailers will realize this overabundance of currency and benefit because they will notice that since everybody is making additional money over what they were making before, they will be able to make more money by raising prices. I feel that all a system like this would end up doing in the long run, is that it would severely devaluate the dollar, because there would end up being a massive overabundance of currency in circulation.

    Second, I believe that the current system in place (food stamps, etc) is better for those with low income, because rather than just being given cash that they can blow on sensual pleasures (if they’re into that sort of thing) and other pointless goods, they would be forced to spend the food stamps on FOOD, their intended purpose: for a basic human necessity. Essentially I believe that the people that this is aimed at wouldn’t spend the money wisely, and also, food stamps cannot be spent on anything else, only food, so you are guaranteeing the class that this system that would “benefit” most from this income bump, a true human need, not more money so that they can prolong an addiction such as drugs or alcohol or spend it pointlessly on gambling. Yes it’s a nice idea to believe that they would spend it on something entrepreneurial or necessary, even something that would enhance their creativity, but no, let’s be frank, if someone has an addiction and is not looking to fight it, you’re basically giving them free drugs or alcohol and are furthering the already corrupt gambling industry. Actually, gambling-wise this would be catastrophic because the people that are into gambling are looking to double their cash, e.g. gain money by spending money. Casinos would see a massive influx of capital thanks to this. So to sum it up: NO this is an incredibly bad idea, I feel that we would be taking a great step backwards as a nation, and that it would possibly increase the rich-poor gap, cause massive inflation, and personally I would never want to see anything like this pass, I really don’t think that it would actually help anything. Yeah a bit of extra money would be nice to throw into a project or hobby, but honestly, it’s not worth the price in the long run, which thanks to the massive inflation that a system like this would cause, would be quite a hefty price.

    -Mike Schultz

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not bad. You obviously put some thought into this piece. I am impressed!

      Delete
    2. I completely agree That this would only lead to inflation. In the long run it would hurt our economy than make it better.

      Delete
    3. Yes I do agree with you that believing that this system is greatly flawed and is almost a step towards communism where everyone gets paid the same amount despite productivity. And also I agree that people wouldn’t spend the money wisely, such as the food stamps and spending on pointless things. It's not worth it.

      -Danielle

      Delete
  19. Comparing the blog and the article, I think that the current welfare program we have now isn’t causing any damage to Americans. I do think it needs improvement but just supplying the poor with money isn’t going to make it better, it’s just going make people not work hard to achieve a better life for themselves. Once money is given to people, they will spend it on things that aren’t necessary. I’m not saying all Americans are going to use that money loosely but I’m pretty sure it’ll end their drive for success and cause them to not want to grasp what life really has to offer.

    I think those food stamps, supplying health insurance, and the main things that the government offers helps the poor try to go out and look for jobs so that they can make their own money rather than just canceling those things out and just giving them the money. I believe that just supplying people with money wouldn’t help the economy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with Krystal but I also think that spending the money in the economy could be productive. If the government is offering the money to individuals they will see it differently than if they earned it. Therefore, they will most likely spend it in the economy freely. As money is spent the multiplier is in effect. For example, if an individual pays a painter the painter buys a slice of pizza, the pizza guy buys...and so on. The initial amount of money adds to multiple efforts growing along the way. In addition, those individuals who continue working would have an extra 10,000 dollars. They could then invest, save, or even be entrepreneurial. All of which, greatly boost our economy. So, maybe this could work...I just don't think that our inefficient United States is where it should be put in play.

      ~Brad Florio

      Delete
  20. This idea of minimum income is ridiculous and completely contradicts its purpose. It was interesting how the author compared the basic income movement to ending slavery. That the people would be gaining a basic freedom and wouldn’t have to be slaves to the rich or the government. Yet this idea would only keep people slaves to this income and to the government. Handing out an allowance of money to all citizens is a temporary fix. No amount of money can solve our deep rooted issues. It would only be a false image. If we put all our faith into this income that it would solve all our problems we would just desire more and more of it. People can never be satisfied when it comes to that type of government assistance. I think people would exactly the same and money wouldn’t change them.
    What about going back to the basics? Our government was put in place for few reasons but over time these reason become twisted and overdone. Society needs to change and people need to change themselves. There are values that are more important than extra money. Besides the basics of food and shelter, Healthcare and education should also be ensured for equal opportunity. Maybe it’s the government that needs to be managed better. Giving people a minimum income may fix things for a short period of time but all the other problems with our system will eventually catch up.

    -Danielle Hickey

    ReplyDelete
  21. 1:50 ETHICS STUDENTS

    Make a rely to commentators below this line only

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ReplyDelete
  22. The proposed idea of giving Americans $10,000 dollars per year who are over 21 would be partially less than the system that we currently have in place. I feel that more research has to be taken over also and furthered processed to see which people who really and truly deserve the money and their reasons on how to spend it wisely. I also agree that most people wouldn't want to spend it for the right reasons to make their lives even better, have a better lifestyle and for even health reasons most importantly. People with addiction problems will use the money to get exactly want they want and spend it very quickly without even thinking (drugs, gambling, alcohol, etc.).
    They should be smarter about their choices and use the money for the right reasons. I believe the people will abuse the system when it comes to managing their money they get. The money should be used for schooling, health insurance, and other certain things that will enable people to have successful, long living and happy life for no longer fighting for their lives in poverty. It should go to the right hands where people know they'll use it for good. No one really knows if people with spend the money on the right things even if this idea was to be done. Therefore it shouldn't until more research is done.

    -Danielle DeGiuli

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I couldn't agree more! As I stated in my comment, people are unfortunately self-centered nowadays. Therefore, as you clearly articulated, there needs to me more research done in order to find a way to regulate how citizens would spend this $10,000 minimum income. However, the whole system seems flawed in my opinion and even if it could be put into effect, wouldn't help the economy. Reforms in the current social security system and governmental system are clearly needed; however, raising the retirement age as well as increasing the percentage of salaries that are put aside for social security are two areas that would better address the current economic issues. And i feel that these areas should be addressed first before we completely implement a new system.

      Eric Haslbauer

      Delete
  23. I agree that our current governmental system needs refinement, for it has had its fair share of troubles throughout the years. However, it has been able to carry America through the roller coaster of historical economic conditions such as the Great Depression, Roaring 20s, and so on. In regards to the idea of a minimum income of $10,000 (somewhat of a stipend just given to every citizen), there are several Americans who would squander that money, spending it foolishly. I disagree that this minimum income would stimulate economic growth, for people would not properly spend it/invest it into the economy. A lack of education prevents everyday citizens from knowing how to spend this money in order to most efficiently benefit the economy as a whole. Unfortunately, most Americans nowadays have a seemingly selfish mentality and would use the $10,000 as “free money” to do with what they like. If there was some way that this system could be adjusted so that all citizens had to use this money to pay for health insurance, food, and other necessities, then just maybe this system would be effective and could be implemented into our society. However, how would said system be regulated through all the citizens? And if this system could be created and regulated, that fact that the government essentially would control where people spent this $10,000 minimum income takes away from the foundation of what the United States of America was founded on, i.e. freedom. Granted, something needs to be done in order to help the seemingly failing world economy; however, a minimum income is not the answer. The reimplementation of the gold standard with some modifications, a new social security system coupled with amendments to the pension plans currently in existence, and simply confidence on the consumer’s part in the economy are areas that could potentially greatly influence the global economy and help lift us out of this recession.

    Eric Haslbauer

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes I would also say that the current system has definitely helped the economic crisis that we have gone through in the past. And i agree on your point that many Americans would spend this money in a foolish way. Therefore I have a theory for your question of how this money could be regulated. Maybe the individuals receiving this money shall be given a form in advance and should be required to asses what they need help paying for. This "form" should consist of only needs and not wants, such as health care, food, and education. This "form" might be difficult to distribute and receive but its just an idea.

      Nicholas C.

      Delete
  24. The current welfare system we have seems to take a lot of criticism. In my opinion it is a great system but maybe not for these upcoming generations. Food stamps and social security seemed to work for the great depression but the world has changed entirely from then. Not to say that they're not helping today, but they're not fulfilling their full potential. Therefore I would not oppose this new idea.
    Is this new system going to be better? We can’t tell simply because every human is different. Each individual will see this as an opportunity for good and bad. Many will take this free money as an opportunity to become successful and try to make their way to the top. But there will be a lot that stick to their ways simply because they’re lazy. To me it isn't the systems that need to be changed but the people.

    -Nicholas C.

    ReplyDelete
  25. As an economics student this idea is kicked around quite often. I understand the logic in providing some base amount for all, but structurally I believe it is flawed. Overall, it benefits the lower class and hurts the working, middle and upper classes. Systems such as the one in place in Switzerland, require large oversight, which equals high costs.
    A policy such as the one described in the article could be put in place in the United States. First, the lower class would continue whatever work they were doing and receive an additional stipend. Of course, some will stop working if they are not and others will stop looking for work. But, based off of research and past examples this is not a large percentage. The real pain would be put on the other classes. Taxpayer money would be used payout others and all of the costs along the way. This includes, hiring people to organize the effort, oversight committees, recording principals and other miscellaneous items along the way.
    The thought process is clear and valid. If a country can help its people shouldn’t it? But government doesn’t world like business and is far from efficient. Look at the Post office, doesn’t exactly run like a dream…
    As Mike mentioned guaranteed income that citizens control is great. Many citizens would even be responsible with the new source of revenue. But frankly $10,000 isn’t a great deal of money and the start up costs for such a venture would ultimately kill its intentions.

    ~Brad Florio

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I completely agree with you Brad and I think the whole idea is flawed also. There is no cut and dry about it at all. Either way we look at this situation, there are some pros and cons to each. I believe the majority of people at a whole are lazy and if there was some more income to come in, I believe many individuals would stop working and take in the "free money" given.

      -Amanda Melilli

      Delete
    2. I appreciate the way you broke down, in part, some of the things that will be needed to fund and fuel this "program." People assume it's always a great idea to just give out money, however, money does not come from nothing. Tax payers, who already receive the burden of those who somehow slip through the tax-paying system, yet receive the benefits of it such as public schools and hospitals, will also feel the burden through additional hand-outs. Although it may seem like a valid argument, I do not agree that it is sound, or just. Justice is not the same as equal distribution of money.
      Rebecca Arnzen

      Delete
  26. The idea of a minimum income to all families or individuals seemed absurd to me at first. My initial concerns were similar to those stated in the Times article, such as creating lazy citizens who will choose not to work, further debilitating those who may have addictions or vices that demand income, or even just the fact that by receiving government hand-outs, we will become irresponsible individuals who only wish to suck the life out of our nation, yet are never willing to give back. However, I quickly realized, we are living in a country where all of these things are already true about a large portion of our citizens. This country is full of those who rely on government, because the government has already been providing “minimum income” through various outlets. For example, food stamps, welfare, government housing, and grants for school that less well-to-do families receive, even if a young student from more well-off families are trying to pay for themselves without mommy and daddy’s help. Are we not already so blinded and deeply inhibited by the government and all of its “helping hands?”
    If part of this $10,000 minimum income from the government is going to be knocked down right from the start to $7,000 because of required health insurance (which I’ll bet excludes private providers), then we have to take into consideration how much $7,000 can really get a poor family or individual in most states here in the U.S. The cost of living, especially in New York, is greater than most families with full-time jobs can maintain. Will that $7,000 really be a stepping stone for those who have never had enough money before? Does this grant come with positive steps and advice on how to manage money and create budgets? Or is it simply the government, once again, slyly handing its citizens the same crutch we’ve been hunched over, simply in a different form? As a financially desperate 25 year old senior in college with loans and bills to pay, I’d probably look at my seven grand and use it to pay off not even a full semester at Molloy. In turn, as most government programs work, that money will be going right back into the hands that fed me the loan to begin with.
    So the United States comes up with this grand amount of money for every and any citizen that qualifies, (which seems to be anyone who can fill out an application), yet they haven’t discussed where this money is coming from, who it will be taken from, and what will happen when it runs out. After creating system of entitlements and hand-outs, or giving people the false perception they may not need to work, will the government be there to help when the money is gone? Of course not. They’ll be using you as a statistic to win an election. Maybe since the Swiss are so rich it could work for their citizens. I don’t see where the ends meet in a country $328 billion in the red.

    Rebecca Arnzen

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. *jumped an additional* $328 in the red. Trillions in debt, and still looking to financially control it's citizens.
      R.A.

      Delete
  27. I think it is a little ridiculous to have Switzerland give everyone some sort of income if they are working or not. I feel as though everyone should be ambitious and want to strive for something in their lives for example like making a living for oneself. I also feel as though if Switzerland wanted to give everyone money in order to live, they should have a minimum income of at least 15,000 a year per household and when having this income then get an incentive of money.

    If the United States of America followed Switzerland's idea of gold, we would be in trouble. We would have people whom are lazy be even more lazy and still gain money. Yes we wouldn't have any homelessness or poverty but this nation would just fall then as it is now.

    I think if Switzerland and The United States wanted to give "free money" to individuals, there should be some sort of minimum "hard working money" earned.

    -Amanda Melilli

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with many points you make such as the one you made saying that Americans would be lazy, that would be a major issue in doing this without thinking about it, that's why there should be strict rules on who gets these benefits and they should be monitored throughout the year to see if they are being lazy and if so they would be unqualified for this. You also made a great statement in saying that the income should be $15,000 but I think that should be a households maximum income because if they cant make more than that then they need the assistance. unfortunately I disagree that everyone can be ambitious and I don't think that everyone can strive for making a living for themselves because of so many people facing uncontrollable issues such as injury, amputation that cause them to not be able to work, or having mental health issues or someone in the family that is dependent on them because of these issues and they need this help.
      -Manuel Roche

      Delete
    2. I completely agree with you. Many people in this country do not at all deserve income like that once a year for doing nothing. I also believe that what you are saying that every person should want to strive and be successful at something or at least try.
      - Casey Colangelo

      Delete
  28. The proposed idea from the article “Switzerland’s Proposal to Pay People for Being Alive” seems to be more of a just system than the one we currently have in place. The reason for this is that it has been working so far in some areas that tried this as experiments, such as Dauphin in Canada, and Bern in Switzerland. A system such as this where the country performs a more socialist method of taking care of its people makes sense because it was proven so far that it can reduce poverty thus affecting other areas positively, such as high school graduate rates, and town wealth increasing. It seems like a good idea to reward hard working citizens who just barely make ends meet and are fighting through physical pain for minimum wage to support their struggling families. Getting a little extra income to those who are living on unemployment because they suffered injury at work, or college students who needed to quit school because they had to become the household’s income due to their parents injury sounds like a much needed change.
    Although I strongly agree that this idea is better than the system we use I do believe that it has some flaws (like anything in life). Getting $10,000 to everyone that qualifies for it every year is great and all, but here comes the question of how it would be funded. The government pays for everything with Americans tax money. This could lead to tax payers having to pay extra just to get their own money back. The reason I assume this is because I know big businesses are not going to open up their pockets and give money to the rest of us. The other option given in one of the articles is to send the money directly to us instead of sending it to tax funded government systems such as healthcare, food stamps and other areas that assist Americans who aren’t earning enough to stay on their feet. This method would not work because many individuals are not responsible enough to use their money wisely and would remain in a poverty state. If the money was given back to citizens it should be in the form of options of government assistance. What I mean by this is that we get options on where we want our money to go, if I want my money to go to my college tuition this year I can use it for that, if I want it to go towards a mortgage I can use it for that this year, but if the money was given to us in form of check or cash it would most likely be spent unwisely. Also if one makes over a certain income a year they don't need this extra money.
    -Manuel Roche

    -Manuel Roche

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah i agree. On paper it sounds like a great idea and something that could potentially help millions of hard working people who are struggling. With that being said, every idea eventually has to come off the page and be produced. Big business will not fund something ever of this magnitude nor would the American people be smart to agree to fund it them selves. Not to mention the many irresponsible people that are to blame for the critique of the welfare system already in place. The problem with the welfare system is the lack of rules it has. This idea of 10,000 dollars just because your 21 and American takes that philosophy of welfare, and removes even more rules and allow more money to be spent unwisely

      Delete
  29. To say that this new policy proposed in the article would completely correct the flaws of today's welfare system is hoping for something that just wont happen. Some of the main critiques of the welfare system in this country today is how easy it is to gain the benefits of it. People are basically given money without any sort of drug test or background check as to what exactly the countries money is being spent on. The government doesn't do enough today to ensure the money given out as part of welfare is being used on productive things. So we are supposed to expect 10,000 dollars given out annually to citizens just because there over 21 and american will fix this problem? Its a shame because many people could benefit greatly from something like this but will never be able to because of the people that abuse the welfare system now.

    ReplyDelete
  30. The idea that is being stated about giving Americans who are over the age of 21 $10,000 a year, I would have to disagree with that. In my opinion, I believe that the people proposing this idea should be doing a lot more research about the effects this idea will have on America as a whole. Not everybody in America deserves get that much money each year, needless to say some people do actually deserve that money and need the help, but many people do not.
    Some people will spend the money in the right ways, but many others will not and they will spend their money on many things that they do not desperately need and they can live without. Food stamps are a good decision but even today some people abuse them and don’t really need to use them. I believe that they should re look into this new idea because not every human is the same and not every human thinks the same way. I believe that many people need a reality check in life.
    -Casey Colangelo

    ReplyDelete
  31. Would this new system be just? I agree that this system would lessen the control that the government has of its citizens and this can also give people who have never had the opportunity (financially) to take advantage of their lives.

    However, this may ENCOURAGE the lazy and unmotivated people in our society to continue to do NOTHING and make $10,000 incomes. How could this be right and just? This money should be going to people who deserve it, not be handed out to everyone. Just like many people in today’s society abuse our government assistance (welfare, food stamps etc.) they would find ways to abuse this system also. This may also feed into peoples addictions whether it’s drugs or alcohol. How could this benefit the society and lot’s of families?

    Andrea Auer

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I dont think that $10,000 would encourage people to be lazy and it could help the needy. There will always be people who try to abuse the system. I dont feel we can control peoples lives or fix the system with $10,000 to everyone. In this economy where would we get the money to fund this program and still take care of the homeless and the underemployed and unemployed?
      - Jp Ortton

      Delete
    2. I agree with this, Andrea. I wrote something very similar to your response.

      If you work hard for your money, you should be rewarded. Why should I be one who sits around and just randomly receives $10,000? I wouldn't be deserving of it; in fact I would feel guilty. It's a shame that this is the way society is and I can only hope things get better here and other ideas are incorporated -- this way our system doesn't end up being unappreciative and chaotic.
      --Lindsey Cotter

      Delete
    3. I agree the money should go with the people who deserve it. It makes no sense to hand it out to everyone especially people who are lazy and not doing anything. It will make them become lazier. This system is definitely bound to get abused sooner or later.
      - Jaylen Morris

      Delete
    4. I agree aswell, because giving the money out to anyone is not fair to the people who work harder than others
      - Matt Gulotta

      Delete
  32. I don’t think that poverty would disappear if each person in the United States was given $10,000. Many people, like the women who works at McDonalds make more than that but they still live below the poverty level. It is very difficult to live on $20,000 a year, especially on long island. I think that community values would change, because for some people they would not have to worry as much about money. They could spend time finishing their education and trying to get better job skills instead.
    Giving more money to the middle class and rich is a unique idea. If they worked hard to get where they were, and they continued on the same progression, then they would only get richer and live better with more money. Unfortunately, for people who are poor or in need the money wouldn’t be enough to help them get out of their circumstances. Hopefully, the drug and alcohol addicted would not abuse the money. Right now, the welfare system as it is, does not work. We need more incentives to help the poor achieve their goals, by education and work related programs. As it stands now, the rich get richer and the poor continue to be poor, $10,000 would not change that very much.
    - Jp Ortton

    ReplyDelete
  33. My question would be, why should anyone ever be given $10,000 just because? If you think about it, Americans don’t even understand the value of a dollar, so by handing them money, it is only going to make things chaotic and cause them to have more greed. The amount of people that spend money on the wrong items such as drugs and alcohol is so incredibly high that I can’t even imagine how much money is actually being wasted. Americans work hard for their money, so at the end of the day they deserve what they get. The amount of ungrateful and selfish people out there when it comes to money is sickening. No one is ever satisfied with what they have; yet you think by doing this, they would actually be happy? So no, it isn't fair.

    As far as the food stamps go, I receive a small amount once a month specifically for FOOD, which is what you are supposed to do. Milk, bread, and eggs are examples of the essentials, however, there are customers who have tried to buy other items such as toiletries, feminine products, beer, cigarettes, etc., and successfully get away with it. [Ex: Employees ringing up a pack of cigarettes as a loaf of bread]. This has happened so often that the state is trying to pass a law to prevent it. In today’s society, Americans don’t know how to be grateful for anything and are quite good at abusing the system.
    -Lindsey Cotter

    ReplyDelete
  34. The proposed idea would help many people and better their lives. I wouldn’t want this because I feel people wouldn’t make the best decisions with the money. There are so many distractions in the world like drugs, alcohol, and gambling. If you handed the people money, they would begin to get lazy and just expect handouts on everything instead of striving to better themselves. Giving people $10,000 to live on for a year is foolish because it is so many expenses that have to be covered. My mindset on this would change if the money went up to about fifteen or twenty thousand. If the United States were to give away money, we would be in a lot of trouble. It would be no poverty, but eventually I believe things would change for the worst. Most importantly I think this is a bad idea because many people take pride in working for what they have and to just be handed money is kind of a slap in the face when you look at it. It makes no sense to give money to people who are working for it and earning a nice income.
    - Jaylen Morris

    ReplyDelete
  35. I believe that the system of guaranteed income in mentioned by Enno Schmidt would be more beneficial simply because it is guaranteed. In order to qualify for the welfare system that is currently in place. With the welfare system, one has to meet certain social standards, as well as, a specified income. The welfare system implies that if a person makes even a small amount over the specified amount. They will be turned away.
    While I do agree that this system would be very beneficial, I do at the same time believe that this would in turn lower the standards of the people as a whole. Take for example the Socialist system of the USSR during its time of reform; while it provided a sense of security to those without a guaranteed source of income, it did not provide the people with an incentive to excel past their mediocre standard of living. Additionally, this new system angered the clergy, which lead to a revolt. This uprising lead to the decline of the Soviet Union, now called Russia. I do not align myself with either side of this argument. But in the case of social and economic reform, a system is more likely to please a certain social population, than please the entire country or state as a whole. I believe that there is more than one sphere to consider when faced with the issues of reform, not just the economic sphere but the sphere of harmony, which pertains to any and all persons alike regardless of incomes or social statuses.

    Andrew Bedard

    ReplyDelete
  36. I believe that this system is easier than the current system we have today, meaning that it is guaranteed for someone to recieve $10,000 rather than someone having to qualify for the system we currently have.
    I dont agree that it is fair though. For example, if somebody was lazy, they would be getting $10,000 and if someone was hard working and they would get $10,000. I dont believe that this method is fair. Someone could benefit from the money, but others could use the money to buy alcohol, drugs, etc. I believe that the money should be given to the people who are hardworking and poor. Not for the wealthy or the lazy.
    - Matt Gulotta

    ReplyDelete
  37. After reading this article, I find the concept to be truly a sincere attempt to remedy our nation’s deep-rooted poverty issue. In the consolidation and replacement of the government’s welfare system, the introduction of basic income would be incredibly simple. With a net income of $7,000 USD, those people who are greatly struggling to support themselves and their families would at least be able to put their foot in the door so to speak, in our current era of vast unemployment and slow job growth. As many of my classmates have posted, the doling out of such large amounts of currency has the potential to be extremely detrimental to the US economy in the forms of inflation and otherwise misuse of the individual’s income (not being used for food, shelter, general necessities). Though they are risks, I believe wholeheartedly in the implementation of such a program would not render those issues, but I also believe the next great consideration that must be made is that of the education of those who are the most needy of support in order for true justice to manifest.

    In order for a program such as basic income to be successful, especially for those people considered most “at risk,” education is key. If those who have the most difficulty maintaining and managing an income do not have the ability or the means to learn (therefore lacking the freedom) to manage their income properly, they are not responsible for the misuse and the injustice they face. In teaching these people to spend in ways that would bring the longest-term benefit to themselves and their families, such as clean foods instead of fast food, investing a lower end, fuel-efficient vehicle instead of gas guzzling luxury one, and investing in their futures by way of balancing debt to establish credit, they have a much stronger possibility in our society to thrive. To pay for such a program, state taxes applied outside of basic income could be established to all of the respective residents; there are many different environments in which poverty thrives in the US, and different levels of funding are needs to meet each one. If such a thorough educational plan could be established and supported, I believe that basic income would be absolutely just in its goals.


    -Max

    ReplyDelete
  38. I believe that giving this $10,000 out would benefit some people who really need it but many others would just waste it on unnecessary things like buying alcohol or some kind of car when they should be putting it to real use such as buying food or water that they never had the money to buy before. They should make real use of it to help support themselves later on in the future

    ReplyDelete
  39. In my opinion to give everyone a set salary of 10,000 is impractical. There would be less jobs for people in the education because nobody would even care to higher their degrees or go further in their careers because they would feel no need to do that. The strive to do better would be lost and people would start to lose responsibility of building a better future for themselves or their families. Why would anyone want to become a successful person if they just had money handed to them. I see nothing wrong with helping people in need with government funded programs for specific necessities like food shelter etc, but to just give a large sum of cash to just anybody doesnt make any sense especially because you dont know what theyre really using it for. With how people are today and how strong greed is, they could use it for the worst

    ReplyDelete
  40. The idea of everyone receiving $10,000 dollars is overall a good idea. The government is intending to do a good deed for the people, and if the people take advantage of the money, it is there problem. Without the set salary in the US right now, people feel bad for the homeless or poor to a certain degree. With the US giving away free money, it's their choice to do what they want with it. If they choose to spend it foolishly, you can't feel sorry for how they handled an opportunity to get their life together. Realistically, now a days, $10,000 is nothing to some people and can be spent very quickly. Some people will spend the money foolishly and some people will spend it wisely. If the money is used towards a car for one person, who cares. If you received the money, then you do what you want with it, there's no reason to care about what everyone else is doing with their money.

    I do agree with the fact that people may be lazy due to money being handed to them, but no one can live off of $10,000 realistically speaking. If they think $10,000 is going to get them a Mercedes Benz and a multimillion dollar house in Beverly Hills they are clearly wrong. If they want that lifestyle, they will still have to work to live their dream.

    ReplyDelete