Op-Ed; Opinion

‘But what about the irresponsible?’

Addressing the issue of the universality of the basic income guarantee
by Tyler Prochazka

I recently asked American Enterprise Institute President Arthur Brooks about his thoughts on the Basic Income Guarantee (BIG). He told me that he was against the idea because there are some people in society that cannot be trusted to spend the money wisely.
This is notable since Brooks is one of the leading conservative voices advocating for a social safety net. And the simplicity of the BIG is what typically attracts many conservatives and libertarians to the idea, including Brooks’ colleague Charles Murray.
As many Americans would find objection to the universality of the BIG, it is important to address this issue head-on and either defend universality or at least offer some proposals to mediate this issue.
One of the most common objections to a BIG is that there are some people that will take the income and drop out of the workforce altogether.
Economist Ed Dolan states the evidence is actually to the contrary. He gives the example of Bruce, who lives on a boat and does odd jobs throughout the year. When given a BIG, Bruce may choose to work less so that he can play guitar and watch birds.
Although people like Bruce certainly exist, Dolan provides persuasive research to show that they are outliers; most individuals would respond to a universal BIG by working more, not less. This is because if a BIG replaced the current entitlement system, there would be greater incentive to work more, since most entitlements quickly drop off as one earns more income.
However, Bruce is not necessarily the most difficult example. There are certain individuals that have lived in poverty for so long they do not necessarily know how to sustainably manage their finances and may spend BIG funds on destructive habits. Some may have severe drug or alcohol addiction. Others may have mental disorders that could impede their ability to make positive choices.
“Irresponsible usage” of the BIG may pose a challenge to the idea of universal income, both politically and pragmatically.
On the political side, there is a paternalistic streak, for good or ill, that runs through much of the American electorate. This is why welfare reform with work requirements was passed in the 1990s. This is also why food stamps restrict the purchase of alcohol.
Thus, the main feature of the BIG – its simplicity – may also be its political downfall.
On the other hand, there is a legitimate concern about how to assist individuals that engage in what society deems “irresponsible behavior.”
A University of Pennsylvania study showed that 85 percent of homeless individuals that were placed in a home still had a home two years later and were unlikely to fall back into homelessness. In fact, the study suggested that this sort of assistance was cheaper than all of the other funds that are used to manage the homeless, such as emergency room visits and jail.
This is not perfectly parallel because it is a specific assistance–housing, in this case. However, it does illustrate that even the most vulnerable in society, the homeless, will not squander their assistance and end up back on the street.

Image via CreditCards.com.

The 100,000 Housing Campaign targets homeless people that that are most likely to die if they remain on the street. The campaign has been able to keep the vast majority of those served out of homelessness. One lesson from this campaign, though, is that they use regular checkups by social workers to ensure that these individuals are still on track.
This is one possible area where a BIG could be improved. Since most administrative costs of entitlements would be saved under a BIG, a small portion of the program could entail social work to provide free checkups and assistance to vulnerable populations that receive the BIG. The social workers could help individuals set up bank accounts, find jobs, and receive healthcare.
The form that would be used when verifying eligibility for the BIG could include questions that would be used to determine who receives automatic regular checkups by social workers.
In extreme cases where a social worker or a police officer finds individuals using their BIG to pay for debilitating alcohol or drug addictions, the BIG could be contingent on whether the individual undergoes treatment. This does not mean that the BIG recipients should undergo random drug tests, which is a failed policy. Rather, this proposes that it may be prudent in limited instances to use the BIG as an incentive to help bring people that have clearly destructive addictions to get treatment.
In instances where an individual may have extreme mental illness or some other issue that prevents them from using their BIG to acquire basic necessities, such as housing and food, then social workers should help this individual find a caretaker of some sort and request that the BIG be administered by the caretaker on their behalf. This type of scheme should be closely monitored to ensure that most of the money is used to assist these individuals and could mandate a low ceiling for compensation of the caretaker.
Nonetheless, individuals that would completely squander the opportunity that a BIG would provide are likely to be rare. Even absent further tinkering of the BIG to prevent “irresponsible behavior,” it is still preferable to the status quo. No government system meant to alleviate poverty will be perfect. However, a BIG is probably the closest we can get.

About Tyler Prochazka

Tyler Prochazka has written 83 articles.

Tyler Prochazka is a PhD candidate in Asia Pacific Studies at National Chengchi University in Taiwan. He is the features editor of Basic Income News and the chairman of UBI Taiwan. Support my work with UBI Taiwan: https://www.patreon.com/typro Facebook.com/TaiwanUBI @typro

The views expressed in this Op-Ed piece are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the view of Basic Income News or BIEN. BIEN and Basic Income News do not endorse any particular policy, but Basic Income News welcomes discussion from all points of view in its Op-Ed section.

4 comments

  • Barbara West

    Thanks for addressing this, is definitely one of the biggest issues I was come up against (After the “how can we afford this? )question.) Certainly in the Bay Area however, if I get a bit, dealing with homeless people is a huge issue. There is no point in arresting them because they can’t pay fines, and putting them in jail, aside from being expensive, is not any kind of deterrent.
    However, if people are getting a basic income, they no longer have an excuse to be on the streets. The fact that they could afford to pay some sort of rent means that shelters and group homes have more resources and maybe better-stuff end

  • Barbara West

    The perils of using a phone to access the Internet; I seem to have pushed the post button accidentally while trying to fix a typo. I’m hoping this can be edited. So… shelters and group homes could be better staffed and there would be more of them. Social workers would definitely be a part of the program. ” Wet houses” allow alcoholics to drink despite being in a group home , which has led to less drinking by residents ( they have lots of social work support, also.) Rather than being hauled off to jail, people on the streets could be taken to the residence, possibly with a small fine to deter future loitering, begging, sidewalk sleeping, public urination, and public drinking, resulting in a happier citizenry. But I totally agree that social workers, payees and conservators would still be an important part of the picture.

  • Steve Richardson

    This objection to BIG is premised on an unsupported assumption that people who have not been able to afford destructive indulgences will do so as soon as they get their hands on the new dole. I suspect most who would squander their checks would find it easier than begging, stealing, prostituting, etc. and perhaps cut back on some of those endeavors. The more difficult source of the objection is the paternalistic and judgmental attitude that assistance must come with conditions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.