Basic Income Guarantee

Last month I wrote about something I called Stipendism. Turns out there already is a similar idea floating around. The basic income guarantee is a proposed system of social security that periodically provides each citizen or resident with a sum of money, regardless of their present income. According to the U.S. Basic Income Guarantee Network:

"The Basic Income Guarantee differs from existing income maintenance programs in the United States and Canada in that it is both universal and has no work requirement. It is therefore, very simple and easy to administer. It helps the working poor, single parents, and the homeless, without placing anyone under the supervision of a caseworker."

Since there is no means test to deterimine eligibility for the program, the basic income guarantee may eliminate or reduce the welfare-created unemployment trap. According to the Basic Income Earth Network:

"...the regular, reliable payment of the benefit is not interrupted when accepting a job under a basic income scheme, whereas it would be under a standard means-tested scheme. Compared to means-tested schemes guaranteeing the same level of minimum income, this opens up real prospects for poor people who have good reasons not to take risks. This amounts to removing one aspect of the unemployment trap commonly associated with conventional benefit systems, an aspect to which social workers are usually far more sensitive than economists."

A basic income program was recently tried out in the poor village of Otjivero, Namibia. Contrary to what some people feared, it did not disincentivize work - in fact, it may have empowered people to work.

"...income has risen by more than the amount of the grants. People are now able to engage in more productive activities, which has fostered local economic growth and development ; several small industries have sprouted up in Otjivero, such as dressmaking, baking, and brick making. Indeed, since the introduction of the BIG, the majority of people have been able to increase their work and their income dramatically. Average monthly household incomes increased substantially over and above the value of the BIG payments : household incomes from wages increased by 19%, income from farming increased by 36%, and income from self- employment increased by 301% during the first year. These findings contradict critics’ claims that the BIG would lead to laziness and dependency."

It may be tempting to make economic stimulation the selling point for the basic income guarantee. But one of the attractive things about the basic income guarantee is the simple freedom from drudgery that it may afford, without penalizing productivity, as said in this video.




Don't get me wrong, I'm still a freed market anarchist. I believe that freedom from unnecessary drudgery can and should be gotten through voluntary interaction. Yes, I do object by principle to the basic income guarantee, because it would be implemented through a monopoly of violence and funded through either coercive wealth acquisition (taxes) or devaluation of a monopoly currency (inflation of a legal tender) (the test in Otjivero, however, is funded through donations). I merely find the basic income guarantee quite interesting, and I wonder if the BIG would involve less beuraucracy, less inefficiency, less frustration, more economic opportunity, and more personal freedom than the current welfare systems in California do.