Life becomes a lot simpler when we just eliminate all these schemes and just let people solve problems for themselves. This expectation that you can disrupt the economy in a major way and have the rest of the society stay static around me is a very serious reasoning error.
> Inflation is a redistribution scheme of the poor to the
> rich and from savings to spenders.
The reason that inflation is a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich is that the poor do have small savings and that gets robbed from them as the newly inflated money makes it way through the bank accounts of those with influence first and don't ever the poor in any positive way.
Can't voluntarily funded charities replace all of those functions?
To use an example, in my parents home country of Bangladesh there is no social welfare. The capital city is full of beggars, homeless children, people with missing limbs hassling you for a few taka. Social welfare is a non-excludable public good. That is to say, if you clean per sol this up, you couldn't limit the benefits just to those who paid, as you can with most goods. Therefore, people would have a strong incentive to avoid paying, because they would count on someone else paying and free-rising on that.
Collective action problems are real, they're important, and they are a major impetus for the existence of government. In a sense, welfare programs are voluntary. Generations of Americans have voted in majorities to continue to support these programs. It's not right to reject the voluntary nature of programs that exist by the majoritarian consensus.
You mean, like expecting everyone to research politicians and political issues and vote responsibly?
A government (or, at least a democratic/republican government) is also a public good, and is at least as susceptible to those problems as government roles like welfare and public defense.
Even so, voted up for introducing an important point to the discussion.
e.g. war on drugs, wars, abortion, gay marriage, etc.
1) You're looking at amount of damage, not susceptibility.
2) You're assuming problems of government couldn't be for reasons other than those being discussed.
3) You're looking at the margin in one case, and the total effect in the other.
Therefore I have the right to hire a bodyguard to use force in my defense. (In fact it is the same right - delegated.)
Therefore we have the right to elect a sheriff to use force in our defense.
...But I do NOT have the right to beat and rob people.
Therefore, neither do I have any right to hire a bodyguard to beat and rob people.
Therefore, neither does our sheriff have any right to beat and rob people -- even if we voted for him to do so! Because you cannot delegate powers you never had.
Therefore the question isn't whether society should provide social welfare for the needy. Rather, the question is whether we have a moral right to use VIOLENCE to FORCE people to provide social welfare for the needy. (We don't.)
The reason you see poverty in various nations is because they do not have economic freedom and secure property rights. The nations with the worst poverty are the ones with the worst protections of rights. The nations with the lowest poverty are the nations with the best protections of rights. And note: those are also the nations who donate the most money to charity.
Government can never fix poverty by using violence to forcefully redistribute wealth. All that will do is cause worse poverty.
The best a government can do is strongly protect rights and economic freedoms -- then you will have a rich nation, which will not have poverty problems in the first place, and which will easily be able to cover the rest through private charity.
Unfortunately we do not see any governments today that respect rights and freedoms in this way, although some are better than others. But proposed solutions based on "social welfare" will only make those problems worse, not better.
[1] There is an argument that unconstrained government is responsible for this. This is not completely without merit: it is certainly true that it can exacerbate the problem, as money corrupts politics and politics wields the force politics wields. However, it can be the case with a minimalist government too; denying that just seems silly. At the extreme, consider paying directly for use of force (open or secret); but subtler things like market power also come into play.
I'll add that many free-market economists are strong supporters of the basic income, especially vs. a minimum wage (Milton Friedman supported a negative income tax). The advantage of the basic income is that it's very simple and there are no mathematical gymnastics needed to neither discourage work or produce a very high marginal income tax rate as you leave the NIT. Lastly, the basic income makes it easier to abandon the income tax entirely and move to consumption based taxation.
How so?
There is little evidence that property prices of high value homes in areas with high income inequality suffer.
>>If giving $X + $Y + $Z to everyone in the US would provide them with a better quality of life, then it makes sense to do that instead of managing separate programs.
Except either 1) benefits to the elderly and the poor must decrease (by more than half if medicare, ss and income security are replaced with a flat basic income) or 2) or taxes on the middle class must increase dramatically. 2) comes about because increasing the top tax rate from ~58%(all ss and medicare with income) to 70% raises about 1.5% of additional gdp in taxes as per the IMF; which even isn't enough to finance a neutral level of basic income for poor, unemployed and elderly.
If you don't increase taxes then millions of americans will enter poverty immediately under a basic income (dramatic quality of life reductions )while large tax increases have a far larger economic impact than the relatively small administrative costs of running social programs. It is just basic math that instead of giving $X dollars to Y number of people doubling Y doesn't let you keep X constant. Some people will be big losers(the most vulnerable).
>> It enables the minimum wage to be much lower than the poverty line. The nation has collectively decided that an adult working full time should be entitled to to the basic necessities of life, and the cost of that decision is that jobs which are worth less than $7.25 simply aren't offered (or are only offered illegally). If everyone already makes enough to get by, then there's far fewer ethical problems with paying someone $3 an hour to sweep some floors or pick up garbage from a sidewalk.
The elderly already receive income assistance that is as least as generous as what you are proposing for everyone and many of them still work. Do you expect them to work for significantly less?
$X makes a difference of F_me(X) in solving whatever problem it is we're caring about.
F_me(X) is valued by me at something less than $X, so I would prefer to unilaterally withhold my contribution.
However, SUM(F_k($X_k)) over everyone may still be valued by me more than $X, so I would prefer to give if everyone else giving is contingent upon it.
If we agree voluntarily to force ourselves to play by the rules, we can all benefit.
The question is not whether to redistribute income, but whether it is acceptable to force people to do so through threat of violence.
The traditional income redistribution systems in the US are social security (from the young to the old), welfare (from the employed to the unemployed), and medicare (from the healthy to the unhealthy). The cost of these systems is $X + $Y + $Z. Costs are inflated by large bureaucracies put in place to enforce social mores as punitive measures against the poor ("piss in this cup or you don't get EBT this month"; "EBT is for buying cheez-puffs, not condoms").
If giving $X + $Y + $Z to everyone in the US would provide them with a better quality of life, then it makes sense to do that instead of managing separate programs.
Two significant additional benefits to a basic income are:
1. It fixes the problem of going from unemployed to employed-at-minimum-wage resulting in a net decrease in household income. It's a simple observation that punishing people for getting a job will decrease the total number of employed adults.
2. It enables the minimum wage to be much lower than the poverty line. The nation has collectively decided that an adult working full time should be entitled to to the basic necessities of life, and the cost of that decision is that jobs which are worth less than $7.25 simply aren't offered (or are only offered illegally). If everyone already makes enough to get by, then there's far fewer ethical problems with paying someone $3 an hour to sweep some floors or pick up garbage from a sidewalk.