Introduction
As a society, we have developed many safety nets for the common hazards of life. Some of these hazards include unemployment benefits, food stamps, social security, and many more. While these programs have good intentions, they often fail to meet the needs of the people who need them the most or they are taken advantage of. As discussed last week with Bastiat, is the government the best entity to be handling involving poverty, social status, and more? I think the government can help provide for its people, but there must be a better option than many different programs that lack cohesiveness and effectiveness when it comes to meeting people’s needs. I believe a universal basic dividend could go a long way in helping to provide for the neediest, but what will that cost the rest of society and is it worth the sacrifice?
What is a Universal Basic Dividend?
A universal basic dividend means the money will go to all citizens regardless of merit or need, the money will be enough to provide for all basic needs, and it will be a distribution of our country’s profits from our gross domestic products to all shareholders or citizens. This differs from universal income which is a direct cash payment and lacks the necessary connection to the United States government. A universal basic dividend’s best argument is that it would be able to provide a safety net for citizens in place of the government’s many ineffective social systems. Every citizen would receive this dividend and so those struggling to make ends meet would have payment guaranteed every month to help in case of hard times. It also provides a stronger connection point for the citizens and the country. If the country is not doing very well economically, then their dividend goes down and vice versa. Therefore, after receiving economical compensation, the citizens will care more about the state of their government and economy because they have a direct investment in it.
Why Would This be a Good Idea?
The idea of a universal basic dividend gives more freedom, ownership, and reduces the government’s power. This idea emphasizes freedom because it allows citizens to have more freedom of choice. Citizens get to decide where to spend the money based on their own, specific financial situation. Rather than the government providing specific welfare services for industry, the money would be a set, reliable amount that a family could choose how to spend. There also would be no expectation of further welfare because citizens are already guaranteed to receive this money for emergency situations. This would stop citizens from having to jump through many, complicated hoops to qualify for welfare, they would get to exercise their freedom of choice as a consumer, and it allows for more social mobility because there are less monetary restrictions for those struggling financially. This idea also upholds the American values of freedom, liberty, and the protection of our property rights. A universal basic dividend would limit the government’s power through the manipulation of social welfare and the constant changing of systems due to party division. Overall, a universal basic dividend enhances our rights, freedom, and limits the government’s power allowing the citizens to get to use the money they way they choose rather than the way they are told.
What Are Some Arguments Against the Idea?
A few common arguments about the universal basic dividend include the creation of a nanny state, disincentivizing work, and the elimination of personal responsibility. While all these arguments have validity, there are some key points to understand. This idea will not create a nanny state. The reality is that the federal government already pays for social welfare and the money spent on these ineffective programs is likely close to the equivalent of what the money spent on a universal basic dividend would be. Unemployment, social security, and more already exist, so the state already assists or ‘nannies’ several groups of people. This way would just allow more people to benefit and would provide more freedom in the way they choose to spend the money received. Another popular argument is that a universal basic dividend will disincentivize working. However, this dividend will provide an emergency fund for people and will not be enough for people to live off. Following this same logic, unemployment benefits disincentivize working. At least this way, the money would be managed more appropriately and would give people the opportunity to work and still receive federal aid unlike our current system. An additional argument against the dividend would also be that it eliminates personal responsibility. Again, the dividend would not be enough money to encourage people to stop working and stop taking responsibility for themselves. We all fall on hard times and sometimes need help from our close family and friends and the federal aid. This way, people are guaranteed some aid for the government and will need to take more responsibility to ensure the money is spent on necessities not whatever the government allows them to spend it on. A good example of this system working effectively is in Alaska. The Alaska Permanent Oil Fund provides its citizens with a set amount of money, decided on by the profits made by the oil and gas company in the state. This money encourages citizens to stay in Alasa, invest in the area, and gives them insurance against the hazards of life. The people of Alaska continue to work and be productive members of society with their dividend every month. This lessens the government’s need for social programs and again encourages people to remain in the state. Despite the many arguments against the united basic dividend, Alaska provides a real-life example of how effective a monthly payment can be.
Conclusion
The idea of a universal basic dividend would give our citizens more freedom, lessen the government’s power, and motivate the people to invest in their country. This dividend would give the power of choice back to the citizens as well as promote individualism. The dividend would also lessen the governments’ power by giving the ability to remove all social programs because each citizen would receive an amount each month to help when hard times hit. These programs are often underfunded and ineffective, so this system would be a better option. The dividend also encourages people to directly invest their time and energy into their country because the dividend would be coming from the gross domestic product. Therefore, people will be encouraged to work in a way that will bring their dividend up. The idea of universal basic dividend has much merit and would give much of the power back to the citizens solving many problems.