jafs wrote:Sure, that makes sense.
But, I thought the idea of the cd was to improve the recipients' productivity directly, so the thought was that low income folks wouldn't just get it and spend it.
Current programs like food stamps/subsidized housing do the same thing economically, right?
Sort of. Food stamps is better, but subsidized housing distort the real estate market in an area and often does more harm than good in the aggregate.
The theoretical advantages of a citizen's dividend are multifaceted: it replaces a series of government bureaucracies and social programs; has near-zero overhead associated with it; cannot easily become the target of fraud and abuse; does not create any perverse incentives not to work; and is actually fairer and more humane than the current safely net, which is a complicated system that can be capricious and challenging to navigate.
Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by subsidized housing - Section 8 housing means that the government pays some of the rent for the tenant, if I understand it right. So it wouldn't matter if we gave people money they spent directly on that or if the government did it, from an economic benefit analysis.
I agree it would be simpler, although not as simple as suggested, if adjustments are made for differences in costs of living, and if sophie's idea of tax/revenue neutrality was enacted.
One could argue that giving money to people that don't need it, like you and me, is by definition fraudulent in some ways. And I can guarantee that any system we put in place will generate some people trying to scam the system - that just seems like human nature to me.
It has the same effect on working or not working for low income people, if they can live off of the cd.
I agree about the complexity and difficulty of navigating the current system.