The Basic Income Guarantee: Simplicity, but at What Cost?

CATO Unbound ^ | 8-26-2014 | Michael D. Tanner

[Citizen Zed]

Our current welfare system is clearly a mess. The federal government currently funds 126 separate anti-poverty programs, at least 72 of which provide either cash or in-kind benefits to individuals. For example, there are 33 housing programs, run by four different cabinet departments, including bizarrely the Department of Energy. There are currently 21 different programs providing food or food purchasing assistance. These programs are administered by three different federal departments and one independent agency.  There are eight different health care programs, administered by five separate agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services. And six cabinet departments and five independent agencies oversee 27 cash or general assistance programs. All together, seven different cabinet agencies and six independent agencies administer at least one anti-poverty program. This maze of overlapping bureaucracies is difficult to navigate for those in the system and perhaps even more difficult to supervise and evaluate.

And obviously we should be concerned that the existing welfare system has utterly failed at its primary mission: lifting people out of poverty and enabling them and their children to become independent and self-supporting members of society.

Last year alone, the federal government spent nearly $700 billion to fund anti-poverty programs. State and local governments kicked in an additional $300 billion, bringing the total to roughly $1 trillion.

[MadIsh32]

Don’t you see how sales, marketing and products are all being geared to the super wealthy now? That is all I do with my company, gear everything to the top .5% and hope to make huge margins on low volume.

The same thing will happen across the board. There will be a bare minimum for us, while the rich will buy all the products at an overinflated price.

[goldstategop]

A cash grant would let people decide what do with the money.

But among both liberals and conservatives there is great distrust of freedom.

If you give every one $10,000 a year for life, no strings attached - the politicians will lose a voting bloc.

And we can’t have that. The opposition to a guaranteed income has nothing to do with socialism or social Darwinism but simply because powerful people don’t want to relinquish their control that comes with money.

That control over people is more important to them than ensuring people can live as they choose or to effectively reduce poverty.