The gist of basic income is that a government “distributes
cash universally. As the logic runs, if everyone gets money—rich and poor, the
employed and the jobless—it removes the stigma of traditional welfare schemes
while ensuring sustenance for all.”[1]
The “logic,” I submit, is flawed even if the basic idea is solid.
The notion of a basic income sprung from the desire to “reimagine
capitalism to more justly distribute its gains.”[2]
Justice here translates into the ideological belief that sustenance itself is a
basic human right, and thus should be guaranteed to everyone. The obligation of
government follows from this right. Interestingly, the laissez-faire economist,
Milton Friedman, “embraced the idea of negative income taxes that put cash in
the hands of the poorest people.”[3]
But as the poorest may not fill out tax returns, cash payments by governments
may more fully realize the objective of a basic income-floor (i.e., no one gets
less than the floor-amount).
I submit that just as making sure that every adult has the
basic, or floor, income, the notion of such a floor does not justify a government
giving cash to everyone—rich or poor, employed or jobless. Adults whose income
already exceeds the income-floor do not need additional income to get up to the
floor, for such people are already above it. As for the stigma of welfare,
which is very real in states like Arizona, the notion of a basic income can
appeal to people whose income is above the floor, for they would be free of the
anxiety of possibly falling through the cracks of a checkered social net should
even a high income end amid continued high expenses. In the wake of the
financial crisis of 2008, for instance, many people whose income exceeded a
basic floor oriented to sustenance lost their homes when they went under water
as real estate markets collapsed—especially in Florida and California.
Orienting the give-out of cash only to adults whose existing
income is zero or otherwise below an established floor (i.e., a floor sufficient
that sustenance can be achieved) would render such a program more fiscally
stable. Whereas Stockton, California, began a test program in 2018 whereby 100
families would get only $500 a month—an amount clearly below sustenance—the requirement
of a full-fledged program wherein only adults below the floor would get cash
could more easily afford to set a floor that truly allows for substance. Then nobody, rich or poor, would have to fear
not being able to survive.
1. Peter S. Goodman, “Inequality?
California City Is First in U.S. to Try,” The New York Times, May 30, 2018.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
