Citizen's Wage: A Version of the Concept

[xxlt]

So, a few years ago I read about a politician who floated the idea of a citizen's wage in the U.S. It was not a novel idea, although it never got much support.

I am not going to look up who the politician was, but I think he was actually a conservative Republican. Doesn't matter.

I want to frame a version of the citizen's wage and see if people think it is a good idea, bad idea, or are neutral.

Here's the version I am offering for consideration in this thread:

By law every citizen of the United States is entitled to a citizen's wage, to be paid on the first of each month. The wage is $1,000. It is to be given to all citizen's over the age of 18, until their death, at which time the payments shall cease. Under this proposal no citizen shall receive any other form of welfare assistance from the government.


Here is what I think are the strengths of the proposal. It gives a modicum of cash to those who are struggling, which they can apply towards a subsistence existence. It avoids the resentment of the working poor, the middle class, and the super rich - who can't cry about people getting money given to them since they are given the same amount, to spend however they wish. It injects money into the economy - those at the lower levels have more to spend on essentials and those at the higher end more to save or invest. It eliminates welfare as we know it and the stigma of receiving welfare, and treats everyone as equal. It doesn't give you extra money for having kids. It assumes if you have kids you can support them, and if you have kids you can't support it is up to you to figure it out, and not the government's job to figure it out. If you can't figure it out you can turn to private charities, but not the government. It says that as a U.S. citizen you are important, valued, and the government offers you its financial support when you need it most and in good times as well.

So, do people think this is a good idea, a bad idea, or have no opinion?

BTW, feel free to google who the politician was who first championed this ancient idea in the U.S. and share about his ideas if you wish.

[xxlt]

Here are some qualifiers people can comment on also.

I wanted to keep the original proposal as clean as possible, but if you like the idea (or don't) how would you feel about these qualifiers.

1. The wage is payable to all who participate in our democracy, meaning voting is mandatory. If you don't vote in an election you forfeit your wage for 12 months. (Assume elections are held with the same frequency they are now.)

2. The wage is payable to all who have educated themselves. Payments commence at age 18 if the citizen has earned a high school diploma or a GED. If you have chosen ignorance as your path, you have not respected your duty and your opportunity as a citizen, and have thus chosen to forfeit your wage.

[Vas Deferens]

I believe there are countries that already do this.  I would fine with the idea, but wouldn't this pretty much immediately drive up the costs of goods, lessening its effects? I'm no economist, but thats my immediate thought.  

I think what I like the most about it is getting rid of the tax incentives to have children.

[StLucieBengal]

$12000 for just breathing?

Don't we give enough handouts already?

[Benton]

Interesting idea, but I dunno. It would be the cheaper than the close to a trillion we spend now on all social aide programs, but our economy doesn't have a lot of checks in regard to wages. If people are willing to pay $100 for a pill, pharma will charge $101, even if that person doesn't make that in a day.

I think costs would just continue to go up. Of course it can be tied in to value of the dollar.

[SunsetBengal]

Not in favor of simply sending a check to everyone. Many do not even need it, many don't deserve it, there are ones who do, but how to discern them?

I am fully in favor of anyone in need to be willing to do community service, and get a living wage for it. I'll give you one good example of how they could serve a valuable purpose to the general public. Cleaning drainage structures. The EPA and UDOs of the United States have developed the most elaborate system of storm water drainage. However, after installation, these structures become clogged with debris, and are rendered useless. If we put some of these people in need to use learning about the drainage system, and how to maintain it, they could have a valuable service, with which to earn a living wage.

[Yojimbo]

(05-12-2016, 09:18 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: $12000 for just breathing?  

Don't we give enough handouts already?

The OP says that all other programs would then be eliminated (food stamps, welfare, etc.).

It's an interesting idea and in the news, sort of, with the upcoming Swiss vote for a monthly government stipend. 

I wonder if some economist has crunched the actual numbers of what size of payment the govt could afford to pay out. Would it actually be better for the economy to go even higher? Or increases to a base payment based on other achievements. Reduction for commiting a crime?

[Benton]

(05-12-2016, 09:18 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: $12000 for just breathing?

Don't we give enough handouts already?

It would take out welfare and other social aide (I'm assuming social security, wic, etc). We currently give out more than that when you lump state and federal social programs together.

[Bilbo Saggins]

(05-12-2016, 09:18 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: $12000 for just breathing?  

Don't we give enough handouts already?

We truly may be getting to the point that if you're not a systems engineer or something like that and you're not obeying direction properly, you're probably just going to get in the way.  Costs could be in the process of being driven into the ground by machines across the board.  It could very well be a future that is as foreign to us as the internet would be to people who grew up in the 1920s. What are the alternatives if people literally have NOTHING that they can add, even if they are of average/above average intelligence? Exterminate them? Let them slog it out as subsistence farmers who are removed from the economy?

[StLucieBengal]

(05-12-2016, 10:08 PM)Benton Wrote: It would take out welfare and other social aide (I'm assuming social security, wic, etc). We currently give out  more than that when you lump state and federal social programs together.

If we got rid off all government assistance.   From healthcare, social security, food, etc.   then this would get interesting.    

While they are at it they should go flat tax and cut the deductions to remove all assistance.   

I have heard this referred to as the mincome.    But you can't do this until you eliminate everything and cap how much it can increase  

[Benton]

(05-12-2016, 11:07 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: If we got rid off all government assistance.   From healthcare, social security, food, etc.   then this would get interesting.    

While they are at it they should go flat tax and cut the deductions to remove all assistance.   

I have heard this referred to as the mincome.    But you can't do this until you eliminate everything and cap how much it can increase  

I dunno if you increase how much it increases without having that tied to inflation. Ultimately, that's the problem now. Middle class wages haven't kept up with inflation.

[xxlt]

(05-12-2016, 09:56 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Not in favor of simply sending a check to everyone.  Many do not even need it, many don't deserve it, there are ones who do, but how to discern them?  

I am fully in favor of anyone in need to be willing to do community service, and get a living wage for it.  I'll give you one good example of how they could serve a valuable purpose to the general public.  Cleaning drainage structures.  The EPA and UDOs of the United States have developed the most elaborate system of storm water drainage.  However, after installation, these structures become clogged with debris, and are rendered useless.  If we put some of these people in need to use learning about the drainage system, and how to maintain it, they could have a valuable service, with which to earn a living wage.

You do realize you sound like a Franklin Delano Roosevelt Democrat now, right?

Your plan is a good one, and your example a good one, I am just rather surprised to hear you suggest it. Putting people to work in this fashion helped to end the Great Depression, and helped build many of America's roads and public buildings. Just brace yourself: people are about to start calling you a communist.

[xxlt]

(05-12-2016, 09:06 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: I believe there are countries that already do this.  I would fine with the idea, but wouldn't this pretty much immediately drive up the costs of goods, lessening its effects? I'm no economist, but thats my immediate thought.  

I think what I like the most about it is getting rid of the tax incentives to have children.

Some would argue prices would rise, but I am not sure this is correct. I would like to see what Yves Smith, Paul Krugman, and some other economists think about this idea.

[xxlt]

(05-12-2016, 10:20 PM)Bilbo Saggins Wrote: We truly may be getting to the point that if you're not a systems engineer or something like that and you're not obeying direction properly, you're probably just going to get in the way.  Costs could be in the process of being driven into the ground by machines across the board.  It could very well be a future that is as foreign to us as the internet would be to people who grew up in the 1920s.  What are the alternatives if people literally have NOTHING that they can add, even if they are of average/above average intelligence?  Exterminate them?  Let them slog it out as subsistence farmers who are removed from the economy?

I have been thinking about this a bit lately. The seemingly imminent self driving vehicles made me really consider it. Driving a hack or a truck or even your own vehicle (Uber, Lyft, delivery person for pizza/flowers/etc.) has been a way for a lot of people to earn something and sometimes even a pretty good living with a pretty attainable skill for quite some time. The self driving vehicle would throw huge numbers of people out of work.

[xxlt]

There is a misconception floating in here and elsewhere that social security and welfare are the same thing. They are not. OP stated the citizen's wage would eliminate welfare, and the crying about who gets welfare since everyone would get the wage. It would not eliminate social security. On that front, I would keep the social security tax at the rate it is, but eliminate the wage cap. If you made $15 million a year you would pay the same social security tax rate on every dollar of earnings as the person who made $15,000.

[xxlt]

Interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

Among other things, in the overview above guaranteed minimum income and basic income are differentiated. The citizen's wage I and others have proposed is a basic income proposal.

Also, the Wikipedia article points out another benefit of the citizen's wage: experiments conducted have shown many people with jobs can work about 5% less under this plan. Most are familiar with the working harder but falling further behind phenomenon of the last 30 years in the U.S. I believe it was Benton who pointed to middle class wages not keeping up as the big problem of this era. Instead of working more hours (and still treading water or sinking) this is a plan that allows you to work a little less, and I think that is a good thing.

[SunsetBengal]

(05-13-2016, 07:20 AM)xxlt Wrote: You do realize you sound like a Franklin Delano Roosevelt Democrat now, right?

Your plan is a good one, and your example a good one, I am just rather surprised to hear you suggest it. Putting people to work in this fashion helped to end the Great Depression, and helped build many of America's roads and public buildings. Just brace yourself: people are about to start calling you a communist.

Just because people generally lean to one side or the other, does not mean that we can't appreciate ideas from the "other side". 

As far as my example, I liken it to an old saying. "If you give a man a fish, he eats today. If you teach the man to fish, he eats for a lifetime."

[Vas Deferens]

(05-13-2016, 08:54 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Just because people generally lean to one side or the other, does not mean that we can't appreciate ideas from the "other side". 

As far as my example, I liken it to an old saying.  "If you give a man a fish, he eats today.  If you teach the man to fish, he eats for a lifetime."

Commie

[SunsetBengal]

(05-13-2016, 09:10 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Commie

Nah, the commie would take my fish, and give it to those too lazy to learn to fish.

[GMDino]

(05-13-2016, 08:54 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Just because people generally lean to one side or the other, does not mean that we can't appreciate ideas from the "other side". 

As far as my example, I liken it to an old saying.  "If you give a man a fish, he eats today.  If you teach the man to fish, he eats for a lifetime."

If you teach a man to fish he drinks beer all day on the boat....