A base income is something that’s being discussed and I find really interesting. In a simple way it is far from being a libertarian idea which I know many on this site favor, but when it is broken down, I find it to be something a large portion of the libertarian community can back. Though not strongly and I am open to change, I support a base income (for my home state of Massachusetts but for most places I think this could work) because it provides a safety net to all human beings which they deserve, ensures the right to life and arguably the pursuit of happiness, is non-discriminatory, allows all people to choose what is best for themselves, and works like welfare without discouraging people from working.
Primarily, base incomes come from the idea that everyone deserves the materials necessary for life. Many institutions have attempted to solve this through welfare and through charities that provide the needy with food and shelter. This is good except for two things: everyone has different needs that they know best, and welfare discourages people from having jobs. A base income, unlike welfare, doesn’t care how much you make; you don’t lose it when you get a job.
Base incomes are non-discriminatory. Everyone gets them (provided they are a resident) regardless of any factors which solves the issue of a bias in the welfare system. Additionally base incomes should be paid out to everyone regardless of dependency status. Base incomes shouldn’t be paid out per family, but per person. A family with multiple children receive more because they are supporting more lives. While the income is technically being paid to babies and children, it can be given to their parents until they reach a mature enough level to claim it on their own.
These incomes can be the steps necessary for people struggling to build a better lives and to be a more productive part of society. If every paycheck they earn is not being used to eat, that money can be saved and provide them with a safety net to allow them to strive bigger.
A common opposition is that taxpayers are afraid that the people currently benefitting from government programs wouldn’t use their base income well, and waste it on bad habits (gambling, drugs, etc.). However, people in need are not one-size-fits all. No one knows what each person needs better than themselves. It is not our job as society to intervene in people’s lives and tell them how to live and spend their money. Of course people make bad decisions but that is their own fault. It is societies job to present people with the materials necessary for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If those people waste them, society has no obligation to help. They had a chance and they wasted it.
It may seem like such a program would require an increase in taxes, but it can be paid for by cutting the government programs this income can replace. Yes, most of these programs only help a portion of the population and base income would be paid to everyone. However, as we all know, the government sucks at everything. Whenever the government gets involved in things like education or housing or healthcare, prices for those things skyrocket. Their programs to help the poor would be more efficient and less expensive if done by private businesses.
Base incomes could hopefully remove the need for social security and healthcare programs and even minimum wage. Making poor people less dependent on employers could give them more bargaining power, healthcare prices would drop without government forcing people to buy it, and base income would just replace social security and welfare.
In reality, a base income is somewhat of a centrist idea. It combines a good part of socialism (yes they exist) keeping the poor well fed and safe, with the upsides of libertarianism, giving citizens the freedom of choice. Unfortunately, it seems that neither major party in America would be willing to get behind such and idea because they both love micromanaging citizens lives. However, if someone in government could push this, I think it would be largely beneficial to Massachusetts as well as most other places willing to enact such a thing. Additionally removing minimum wage would hopefully drive industry to prosper in the area because wages would become the proper amount dictated by the free market.
As always, I encourage anyone who either opposes or agrees to share there thoughts on the subject. I still have a lot to learn on this and anything is helpful. Thank you.
- ə