TANSTAAFL applies, as always.
Matt Zwolinski makes the libertarian case for a guaranteed annual income over at the BHL blog. It’s not a bad case. Here’s Matt:
He also has a great links roundup of others’ commentary; David Friedman’s critique is particularly good.
The basic problem with guaranteed income schemes is that they cannot really replace the welfare state. It would be great if they could, because we could then do away with a whole pile of messiness around really high effective marginal tax rates when abatement starts kicking in on a bunch of means-tested policies, and a whole pile of transactions costs around assessing eligibility for different benefits.
Think of it this way. Imagine the level of support currently granted to somebody who’s really badly off: a bunch of disability-related benefits, income support, child-related support, housing support and the like. The total value of that bundle is going to be large. If you set up a GAI to make sure this person is no worse off, the average and marginal tax rates needed to support paying everybody that amount would be crippling. If you instead set up a GAI to pay everybody a basic income and have other support schemes on top of that for those with particular needs, you keep much of the current welfare apparatus but add in the substantial hit to marginal tax rates of giving everybody the GAI payment.
I don’t think the basic math’s changed much since I wrote about it in 2011; Treasury had then reckoned we’d need a flat personal tax rate of between 50% and 56% to make it work. Again, we’re faced with Milligan’s Impossibility: In any GAI, you can only pick two of the following three:
- low tax rate
- high benefit
- balanced budget
The University of Manitoba’s Evelyn Forget has done some nice work on a guaranteed minimum income scheme trialed in Dauphin a few decades ago. Straight cash transfers to people in Dauphin from people mostly outside of Dauphin did a lot of good for a lot of people in Dauphin. I wonder what it would have looked like if Dauphin’s higher income earners and businesses had to cover the programme’s costs.