We came much closer than anyone seems to remember under Nixon in the 70's.
http://www.remappingdebate.org/article/guaranteed-income%E2%...
I think we do, every state has a Vocational Rehabilitation program that attempt to do just that. In fact, I became disabled at the age of 22, and could have lived the rest of my life with full disability benefits, But instead chose to use one of these programs. I have since payed back in taxes to the state + more that what I most likely used. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/WorkingatFDA/UCM277757...
What a bizarre statement. It's really easy to read that as two things:
1. You're totally game to experiment, just so long as it's not your money. 2. Anyone who doesn't agree must hate poor people.
I'm pretty certain you didn't really mean either, but the net result of that sentence is awfully unproductive: "anyone who doesn't like this must either have skin in the game or hate poor people!"
1. It's POSSIBLE to be unhappy about this, IF it is your money being used, and you have certain criticisms.
but
2. If it's not your money, I can't see how anyone could possibly have an issue with the experiment.
Which part do you disagree with? I'm not saying that anyone whose money is involved here HAS to be upset about it. I'm just saying, if they have skin in the game, they at least may have REASON to quibble. And if they don't, I don't see what complaint a person could possibly have with research (that, incidentally, benefits people).
I merely was saying I can't see a valid criticism for those of us who aren't paying for it. There may be some valid criticisms of the idea, but I'd rather see how this goes.
I can't think of a single (valid) reason to oppose basic research on solving poverty, when that research has no negative impact on the person who might be opposing it. Can you? The only one I can think of is "I want to ensure poor people are kept poor."
In a small sense, the US is already doing it. 60 minutes did a story on an area in Kentucky and West Virginia where they estimated 10-15% of the population, 250 thousand people, are on social security disability. Local lawyers guaranteed, and the Social Security Administration agreed, that they could get anybody classified as "disabled" to get benefits.
I'm not sure how relevant this is, but I believe it's related to the topic of basic income, and hopefully it's at least slightly interesting! :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund
(Coincidentally, I only heard about it last weekend, at what you could describe as an "alternative economics" conference.)
It's an interesting concept. My immediate reaction is that it creates disincentives to work. In theory it does, but the only data we have is those who are currently on welfare and do not work -- but maybe those people were basically not going to work anyway! We have no competing group of people who are on welfare yet still CHOOSE to work to better their lives, because as soon as someone gets a job, no more benefits! So it's natural that an outsize chunk of people on public assistance don't work -- and the ones who stay on the longest, of course, don't WANT to work. But it undercounts those who go on the system then back out of it as they get work.
Other things that seem "obvious" to result: inflation. If everyone can afford $x for housing, why should housing costs not go up by a similar amount? The same way 2 incomes is now "normal", and the same way giving tax deductions on mortgage interest to make housing "more affordable" means, now that everyone can afford more housing, housing is bid up.
I don't know, but it's a fascinating experiment, anyone who is not paying for it should be in favor of this experiment -- unless you just hate poor people.