🤖 I’m a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:
Click here to see the summary
Others see everything from a means of unleashing the population’s creative potential to a policy that would undermine human agency and erode “psychological capital.” Some see it as a way to shore up the welfare state.
The same goes for one that replaces all other welfare, like food aid (sometimes referred to as a “pure UBI,” which would actually leave the most disadvantaged worse off, and is a bad idea), compared with one that complements existing programs.
If basic income won’t be the silver bullet that changes — or destroys — society, it becomes something far more politically tractable: a moderately effective policy, albeit one with trade-offs, that is well worth considering.
It’s how to get a program with a $3 trillion price tag through a Congress that couldn’t even solidify an incredibly successful basic income for children — the temporarily expanded child tax credit — that only cost about $100 billion.
Even if the $3 trillion version were to pass, perhaps by effectively communicating how taxing some of the benefits back would lower the program’s net cost, the result would land US federal spending as a percentage of GDP right around where France and Scandinavian countries already sit.
It could bring basic income further into the realm of pragmatic policy analysis, where wonks of all stripes present their views on whether or not the programs’ tradeoffs are worth it.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !politics@beehaw.org
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it’s a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
🤖 I’m a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:
Click here to see the summary
Others see everything from a means of unleashing the population’s creative potential to a policy that would undermine human agency and erode “psychological capital.” Some see it as a way to shore up the welfare state.
The same goes for one that replaces all other welfare, like food aid (sometimes referred to as a “pure UBI,” which would actually leave the most disadvantaged worse off, and is a bad idea), compared with one that complements existing programs.
If basic income won’t be the silver bullet that changes — or destroys — society, it becomes something far more politically tractable: a moderately effective policy, albeit one with trade-offs, that is well worth considering.
It’s how to get a program with a $3 trillion price tag through a Congress that couldn’t even solidify an incredibly successful basic income for children — the temporarily expanded child tax credit — that only cost about $100 billion.
Even if the $3 trillion version were to pass, perhaps by effectively communicating how taxing some of the benefits back would lower the program’s net cost, the result would land US federal spending as a percentage of GDP right around where France and Scandinavian countries already sit.
It could bring basic income further into the realm of pragmatic policy analysis, where wonks of all stripes present their views on whether or not the programs’ tradeoffs are worth it.
Saved 83% of original text.