Universal Basic Income and the Media
Over the last few years, there's been increasing discussion about the possibility of establishing a "universal basic income." The discussion has become more significant with Stockton, California starting a program to implement one.
What is a universal basic income? Wikipedia says:
First, they said a basic income was used in Thomas Moore's book Utopia. This is an older work of fiction which for many people would mainly link it to the word "utopia" (which is commonly taken to mean unreal.) CBS could have noted that Thomas Paine (author of Common Sense during the American Revolution) wrote a nonfiction work which described the idea. In its article on Paine, Wikipedia states, "He published the pamphlet Agrarian Justice (1797), discussing the origins of property and introduced the concept of a guaranteed minimum income." I think that would have been more meaningful to more Americans.
Second, CBS said Pres. Nixon contemplated the idea. Let's face it, linking something to Nixon is not the best way to make an American keep an open mind to an idea. CBS could have told the audience that Martin Ford, founder of a Silicon Valley-based software development firm, proposed in his book Rise of the Robots that a minimum income be established as a safety net for those who will lose their jobs when automation reduces human employment.
Finally, CBS tells us Martin Luther King, Jr. advocated a universal basic income. While King is held in esteem by many Americans, his words are not as widely seen as an authority on matters beyond racial discrimination. King might be a generally good example, or might be a divisive one.
The CBS story also gives the audience a distorted view of the financing of a basic income, saying, "For example, $10,000 a year X 300 million people is $3 trillion." And notes that's a large percentage of the current federal budget. CBS did not quote anyone attempting to clarify this or present an alternate view of this. As the Wikipedia article explained, there are different versions of the basic income idea. They don't all conform to CBS's calculation. By mentioning 300 million Americans, they assume that every man, woman and child would receive the same amount even if they are living as part of a family. That would mean a husband and wife with three children would receive $50,000 a year in addition to any other income that have. It's up to the majority of the people choose what is the right amount. But it seems to me that CBS has chosen an amount to negatively influence viewers.
The comparison between the amount of money which would be paid out and the current federal budget is also flawed. The term "universal basic income" includes the word "basic." The objective is not to add $10,000 (or whatever the amount may be) on top of every individual's after-tax income. That's just trying to pull money out of thin air. A universal basic income provided by the government - like every other government function - would have to be funded by taxes. The wealthy don't need an extra $10,000 added to their after-tax income. Poor people may need that much added to their incomes. Taxation would have to be adjusted so that the taxes on billionaires increased by much more than the amount in their universal basic income check. Millionaires' taxes would increase by more than their universal basic income. There would be people with middle incomes whose taxes would increase by exactly the same amount as the universal basic income (their after-tax income would stay the same.) There would be some below-average income people whose taxes would increase by an amount less than their universal basic income (their after-tax income would increase by 1/4 or 3/4 as much as the universal basic income amount.) Very poor people would have their after-tax income rise by the full universal basic income amount.
Depending on which version of the universal basic income was implemented, the total amount of "basic income payments to people minus additional taxes to pay for it" would vary, but CBS made no attempt to mention this general fact or the amounts that any particular version might have. This is misleading.
CBS did give a brief reference to the fact that the universal basic income would be doing the same job as some current social safety net programs. So, even if there were no new taxes on billionaires to help pay for a universal basic income, federal spending would not increase by $10,000 times the number of recipients. Many of the people who need it most are already getting public assistance of one kind or another. They would just be switched from one type to another.
OK, so if poor people are already getting money, why institute this new kind of program? There are a couple of reasons. First, Thomas Paine explained in his proposal that by giving a payment for the same amount to every family, the poor wouldn't feel stigma in getting the help they need. They would not feel embarrassment in having to go and prove to the authorities they lived in poverty. (They would still provide income information as everyone else when filing taxes, which is not fun for anyone. But they would not have to go through the other process.) Another reason for establishing a universal basic income would be to legislate the principle of a basic income as a right - not just something this year's politicians may keep or eliminate as an optional budget item. It would also provide needed help to those who fall through the cracks of the current system. More recently, an additional reason has been brought forward. As mentioned above, people such as Martin Ford expect automation to lead to rising unemployment in the next few decades. To prepare for this, we need a program that will provide a living for those who would work for a living if not for automation.
What about people who would get the universal basic income and then choose not to work? That's up to the majority to decide. Personally, I believe the first thing to do is to guarantee than anyone willing to work has an appropriate job for their abilities. Once nobody is unemployed for lack of job openings, biased hiring or such, then we will better know who merely chooses to have others do their work for them. And that also raises the question of the idle rich. There are people out there who are "born with a silver spoon in their mouth," are sent to the best schools and colleges, and have the best business connections - but choose to never hold a job while living in luxury. When we try to decide what to do about people who could work but won't, we should discuss those who eat up the largest share of society's resources.
What is a universal basic income? Wikipedia says:
a type of program in which citizens (or permanent residents) of a country may receive a regular sum of money from a source such as the government. A pure or unconditional basic income has no means test, much like Social Security in the United States. Basic income can be implemented nationally, regionally or locally.CBS recently re-broadcast a segment which discussed the idea. I thought there were several significant problems with their presentation, suggesting (intentional or unintentional) bias. One way in which someone can set the tone about an idea is to suggest with whom or what it is associated. CBS set the tone for the idea of a universal basic income by linking it to three books or people.
An unconditional income that is sufficient to meet a person's basic needs (at or above the poverty line), is called full basic income, while if it is less than that amount, it is called partial.
First, they said a basic income was used in Thomas Moore's book Utopia. This is an older work of fiction which for many people would mainly link it to the word "utopia" (which is commonly taken to mean unreal.) CBS could have noted that Thomas Paine (author of Common Sense during the American Revolution) wrote a nonfiction work which described the idea. In its article on Paine, Wikipedia states, "He published the pamphlet Agrarian Justice (1797), discussing the origins of property and introduced the concept of a guaranteed minimum income." I think that would have been more meaningful to more Americans.
Second, CBS said Pres. Nixon contemplated the idea. Let's face it, linking something to Nixon is not the best way to make an American keep an open mind to an idea. CBS could have told the audience that Martin Ford, founder of a Silicon Valley-based software development firm, proposed in his book Rise of the Robots that a minimum income be established as a safety net for those who will lose their jobs when automation reduces human employment.
Finally, CBS tells us Martin Luther King, Jr. advocated a universal basic income. While King is held in esteem by many Americans, his words are not as widely seen as an authority on matters beyond racial discrimination. King might be a generally good example, or might be a divisive one.
The CBS story also gives the audience a distorted view of the financing of a basic income, saying, "For example, $10,000 a year X 300 million people is $3 trillion." And notes that's a large percentage of the current federal budget. CBS did not quote anyone attempting to clarify this or present an alternate view of this. As the Wikipedia article explained, there are different versions of the basic income idea. They don't all conform to CBS's calculation. By mentioning 300 million Americans, they assume that every man, woman and child would receive the same amount even if they are living as part of a family. That would mean a husband and wife with three children would receive $50,000 a year in addition to any other income that have. It's up to the majority of the people choose what is the right amount. But it seems to me that CBS has chosen an amount to negatively influence viewers.
The comparison between the amount of money which would be paid out and the current federal budget is also flawed. The term "universal basic income" includes the word "basic." The objective is not to add $10,000 (or whatever the amount may be) on top of every individual's after-tax income. That's just trying to pull money out of thin air. A universal basic income provided by the government - like every other government function - would have to be funded by taxes. The wealthy don't need an extra $10,000 added to their after-tax income. Poor people may need that much added to their incomes. Taxation would have to be adjusted so that the taxes on billionaires increased by much more than the amount in their universal basic income check. Millionaires' taxes would increase by more than their universal basic income. There would be people with middle incomes whose taxes would increase by exactly the same amount as the universal basic income (their after-tax income would stay the same.) There would be some below-average income people whose taxes would increase by an amount less than their universal basic income (their after-tax income would increase by 1/4 or 3/4 as much as the universal basic income amount.) Very poor people would have their after-tax income rise by the full universal basic income amount.
Depending on which version of the universal basic income was implemented, the total amount of "basic income payments to people minus additional taxes to pay for it" would vary, but CBS made no attempt to mention this general fact or the amounts that any particular version might have. This is misleading.
CBS did give a brief reference to the fact that the universal basic income would be doing the same job as some current social safety net programs. So, even if there were no new taxes on billionaires to help pay for a universal basic income, federal spending would not increase by $10,000 times the number of recipients. Many of the people who need it most are already getting public assistance of one kind or another. They would just be switched from one type to another.
OK, so if poor people are already getting money, why institute this new kind of program? There are a couple of reasons. First, Thomas Paine explained in his proposal that by giving a payment for the same amount to every family, the poor wouldn't feel stigma in getting the help they need. They would not feel embarrassment in having to go and prove to the authorities they lived in poverty. (They would still provide income information as everyone else when filing taxes, which is not fun for anyone. But they would not have to go through the other process.) Another reason for establishing a universal basic income would be to legislate the principle of a basic income as a right - not just something this year's politicians may keep or eliminate as an optional budget item. It would also provide needed help to those who fall through the cracks of the current system. More recently, an additional reason has been brought forward. As mentioned above, people such as Martin Ford expect automation to lead to rising unemployment in the next few decades. To prepare for this, we need a program that will provide a living for those who would work for a living if not for automation.
What about people who would get the universal basic income and then choose not to work? That's up to the majority to decide. Personally, I believe the first thing to do is to guarantee than anyone willing to work has an appropriate job for their abilities. Once nobody is unemployed for lack of job openings, biased hiring or such, then we will better know who merely chooses to have others do their work for them. And that also raises the question of the idle rich. There are people out there who are "born with a silver spoon in their mouth," are sent to the best schools and colleges, and have the best business connections - but choose to never hold a job while living in luxury. When we try to decide what to do about people who could work but won't, we should discuss those who eat up the largest share of society's resources.
Comments
Post a Comment