To understand if this is feasible I think we would need to answer a few basic questions:
1. Given that we have a plethora of wealth transfers in place why have they not lead to a decrease in poverty? The "Great Society" was introduced 40 or 50 years ago and why has that not lead to a decrease in poverty?
2. Why does collapsing all existing programs into a single program make it more efficient? Why will it lead to less complexity? How will other actors (like government unions) respond?
3. How much is "Basic Income"? How should it be adjusted for inflation? Should it be the same in every geography even though the cost of living varies greatly? It seems to me this is the real question that people focus on even though personally I believe it should be the second.
For #2, look at the Brazilian experience. All the social programs were collapsed into "Bolsa Família" (a 2 oposing presidencies work), with huge gains in efficiency and a huge reduction in corruption. The long term response from the government was to create new programs, that don't suffer from that huge reduction in corruption, but it's hard to make excuses for them, instead of just increasing the main one.
For #3, the best way I can see is targeting an income inequality. It income concentrates, increase the BI, if it gets more distributed, reduce it.
Perhaps it's because we have an entire industry (and government bureaucracy) dependent on there being dependent class? Yes, the goal posts get changed. It's not that kids are hungry, they're food insecure. Same with parents, job insecure. Well, they used to call that life. You'd go out, work your butt off, save what you earned, and only rely on family, friends, and church. Nowadays, it's depend on your monthly EBT and never improve your lot.
Yes. Here in San Francisco, there's a push for food stamps to be accepted at higher-end restaurants as opposed to just fast food. It's slowly becoming a "right" to not only eat out, but to dine well.
So, to recap, poverty has gone from starving => hunger => food necessities => fast food => fine dining.
I really don't mind the push for this. It's just calling it "poverty" that grinds my gears.
1. Given that we have a plethora of wealth transfers in place why have they not lead to a decrease in poverty? The "Great Society" was introduced 40 or 50 years ago and why has that not lead to a decrease in poverty?
2. Why does collapsing all existing programs into a single program make it more efficient? Why will it lead to less complexity? How will other actors (like government unions) respond?
3. How much is "Basic Income"? How should it be adjusted for inflation? Should it be the same in every geography even though the cost of living varies greatly? It seems to me this is the real question that people focus on even though personally I believe it should be the second.