Basic Income: From Paine to MLK; a solution to Welfare and Poverty?Submitted by jaktober on Fri, 12/13/2013 - 17:06
My goal has always been to find the best "compromise" solution to the issues that divide us as communities (Nation, State, City, Family and World).
In response to Ron Paul's 2012 "cut 5 departments" I developed a "cut all but 5 (and add 1)" strategy.
Part of that was to streamline all Welfare into a single Welfare Department (the other 5 surviving departments would be; Defense, State, Interior, Justice and Treasury).
With that in mind, I recently started reading and thinking about the concept of a minimum income (Switzerland recently passed such a law; Alaska mimics it with the $10,000+/year citizen subsidy from Oil profits).
Simply looking through wikipedia found a number of supporters and quotes:
Thomas Paine: A "Citizen's Dividend" to compensate for: "loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property."
The first Musilm, Abu Bakr, proposed a minimum income for all men, women, and children.
MLK Jr.: "I am now convinced that the simplest approach will prove to be the most effective — the solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a now widely discussed measure: the guaranteed income."
Even HAYEK: "I have always said that I am in favor of a minimum income for every person in the country."
Currently, Welfare is given out in waivers, and expensive government ran systems, that seem to actually subjegate the poor.
Section 8 is only accepted by certain renters, and those renters must go through a bunch of paper work to be approved to accept the "welfare."
Food Stamps can only be used for specific items, require work from the vender, and keep those that need them in the culture of being poor.
HUD moves "the poor" into the same neighbor, away from society.
With a basic income "the poor" would just have extra cash, they could rent anywhere, buy anything (and yes, they will buy food and nessesities first, it's nature). And it'll save all those involved a lot of time and energy, and the government (thus the tax payers) a lot of money.
In connection with concepts like "Free Clinics" (not government run health-care), poverty would actually be fixable.
Is this an issue which Social Progressives and Fiscal Conservatives could agree upon?
In my opinion it is better for both sides' concerns (for taking care of the poor, and for keeping Government small).