by Guest Contributor | Jun 29, 2018 | Opinion
Written by: Leah Hamilton, MSW, PhD
Democrats and Republicans don’t see eye to eye very often, but they can safely agree on one point: welfare doesn’t work. Liberals are concerned that an ever-shrinking social safety net reaches fewer and fewer families in need. Republicans worry that welfare benefits create dependence. They are both right.
The primary cash assistance program in the United States, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, served 68% of low-income families in 1996. Today, only 23% of poor families receive assistance. This change has been largely brought about by the imposition of five-year lifetime limits (states are allowed to set lower limits) and stricter eligibility criteria. Welfare caseload reductions have been solidly linked to the rise of deep poverty in America, family strain and increased foster care placements. 1.46 million US households (including 2.8 million children) now live on less than $2 per person, per day (the World Bank’s measurement of extreme poverty).
Meanwhile, welfare eligibility rules designed to encourage independence have achieved the opposite effect. For example, though many states impose strict work requirements, states which loosen these rules actually see recipients move to higher wage, higher benefit work, presumably because they have the breathing room to search for a good job rather than take the first one that comes along. Similarly, in states with strict limitations on recipient assets, poor families are less likely to own a car, making it nearly impossible to maintain employment in areas without public transportation. Even worse, some researchers are discovering a “cliff effect” in which welfare recipients immediately lose all benefits (including child care assistance) after a small increase in income. As a result, many parents turn down promotional opportunities because they would be ultimately worse off financially. Any parent would make the same decision if it meant the ability to feed their children and afford quality childcare.
We must redesign this entire system. In the most prosperous nation in the world, it is ludicrous that children are growing up in the kind of deprivation we normally associate with developing countries. Simultaneously, we must ensure that no one is discouraged from growing their income or assets. One potential solution is a universal basic income, which would provide an annual benefit to every citizen. However, this idea comes with a hefty price tag and would either increase our national deficit or increase the marginal tax rate, both of which might be political non-starters. The simpler solution is a Negative Income Tax (NIT) which is potentially cheaper than our current poverty alleviation efforts. An NIT is a refundable tax credit which brings every household to the federal poverty level. The most effective way to do this is to decrease the credit slowly (for example, a $0.50 reduction for each $1.00 increase in earned income) so that there is never a penalty for hard work.
Researchers at the University of Michigan calculated what this might look like in practice. If a family had no income, their tax credit would be 100% of the poverty line ($20,780 for a family of three). If the family’s earned income increased to half the poverty line ($10,390), their tax credit would decrease to $15,585. The credit would phase out completely once the family’s income reached twice the poverty level ($41,560). This plan would cost roughly $219 billion per year and could be almost completely paid for by replacing most or all of our current poverty programs.
With this one simple policy, we can achieve many goals of both the left and right. Poverty would be eliminated overnight. Work disincentives would be removed. American bureaucracy would be significantly reduced. Families would be free to make financial decisions without government intrusion. And in the long run, we would save money. Childhood poverty alone costs the US $1.03 trillion (yes, trillion) per year. In the 21st century, eradicating poverty isn’t complicated. We’re just going about it in the worst possible way.
About the author:
Leah Hamilton, MSW, PhD is an Assistant Professor of Social Work at Appalachian State University. She received a BSW from Metropolitan State University of Denver, an MSW from the University of Denver and a PhD in Public Policy at the University of Arkansas. She served as a Foster Care Case Worker and trainer for five years in Denver, Colorado. Dr. Hamilton’s research interests include poverty, economic justice, and social policy.
by Karl Widerquist | Jun 27, 2018 | Opinion, The Indepentarian
This piece was originally published in
Cake: The Nonmusic Music Magazine in February 1997. I reproduce it here because the original source is not available online.
“Ever since I was a young boy” I dreamed of doing the simple stuff while the guitar player
Karl Widerquist, about 1995
shows off. Being the stable one while the drummer does the drugs. Negotiating with the club owner while the singer negotiates with the waitress. Being on stage but…in the back.
Actually, I started when a guitar player told me, “learn bass & you’re in the band, we have everything else.” It was easy to play: only 4 strings, and you don’t have to play chords. Bass isn’t easy to play good, but it’s easy to play. It’s so easy that on your first day you could lean enough to play a song with a band. And you can be a good bass player, if you can do one thing really good:
Count to four.
Counting is not supposed to be something you’re good at. In school, after you learn to count to four, you learn five and so on, and then you learn math, but you never stop to get good at counting. In music, you don’t usually need to count any more than four, but you need to do it over and over again, for your whole life, and only a few master it. You have to be able count at any speed over and over again at exactly the same speed. This is kind’a technical, but it suffices to say that a band that can’t do it sounds bad.
Once you’re passable at counting, you can start doing interesting things. Just don’t call attention to yourself. As long as you’re simple and you count one when you’re supposed to count one, you can do anything you want. There’s nothing in the low end but you.
-Karl Widerquist, New York, NY, 1997
Remember Alice? in Pittsburgh, 1996
by Karl Widerquist | Jun 20, 2018 | Opinion, The Indepentarian
This article was published by Chronogram Magazine in January 1998. I reproduce it here because the Chronogram does not keep its back issues from that long ago online.
-Written mostly in Annandale-on-Hudson, New York, 1998
by Guest Contributor | Jun 15, 2018 | Opinion
Written by: Thomas Klemm
Some indigenous nations within the United States may have answers to many of the biggest questions of basic income, due to their experience with basic income-like programs. Nations have been doing this in the form of what is commonly known as “per capita” payments. While per capita payments pre-date casino gaming, the majority of per capita payment programs came after passing The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), which was passed in 1988. Traditionally, casinos have been a massive source of income and revenue for the Indian community. However, the online casino market has slowly resulted in revenue dropping substantially. The simple reason for this is Casinos not on gamstop have proven to be very popular.
These per capita payments commonly come from the allocation of casino revenue. Anyone who has installed the mega888 download will be well aware of how lucrative the casino market is at the moment. If you haven’t downloaded it, or at least something similar, you are potentially missing out on some big winnings. Just remember to check a review first, before you decide on an online casino or casino app. You don’t want to deposit any money into it unless you can be sure it is a good site to use. The market in general is booming, be it with the in-person locations with the glitz and glamor, or with the online sites that allow for fast withdrawal of those shiny winnings. Moreover, it should be stated that other business ventures are used to fund these payments as well. How successful these ventures are is often dependent on how close to a large population the nation is. Being that most indigenous people were forcibly moved to some of the most isolated and rural parts of this country, it makes successful gaming a near impossibility for most tribal nations. Due to this, the size and frequency of per capita payments vary greatly among nations, with some being negligible, some being partial basic incomes, and some being full basic incomes. Some stipends are given bi-weekly, monthly, bi-annually and annually. Attitudes vary greatly as well, with each indigenous person having their own personal experience with this topic. Stereotypes about all Native Americans being casino-rich and or getting “government checks” are still pervasive and harmful. It is important to note that though some growth has occurred, Native Americans were the poorest racial demographic before IGRA and are still today the poorest.
I am certainly not the first person to make the connection that these stipends are a form of basic income. The Eastern Band of Cherokee per capita program has been researched extensively, yielding incredible results. While there is an academic angle to take in terms of researching per capita programs, more importantly, a dialogue needs to be started between the UBI community and indigenous nations. This means reaching out to indigenous nations’ leaders and citizens. Indigenous researchers should be at the front of these efforts. If one is interested in this topic and cannot think of any indigenous researchers to consult or lead these efforts, it is necessary for a closer examination of why that is the case.
While there are some indigenous people I know who think these have been positive and successful programs, there are some who feel differently. There are vastly more indigenous people I have not met with their own unique and valid perspective on this subject. While some may be open as the Eastern Band of Cherokee to this type of research, some may not be interested. It is a nation’s sovereign right to keep information about their per capita system private and any refusal to participate in research efforts by outside entities should be respected.
Nations that implement these programs are not labs, and their citizens are not research subjects. These nations are examples of a different way of doing things. The citizens are leading experts in UBI by way of experience. Community leaders know what these programs have done to their communities for better or worse. The discussion of implementing a basic income is incomplete without the indigenous voice and experience as a central component to the conversation.
About the author: Thomas Klemm is a citizen of the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians. He currently lives in Ann Arbor MI, where he is a BSW candidate at Eastern Michigan University and works at Dawn Farm Inc. as a Recovery Support Specialist. Thomas has hopes of continuing his education at the graduate level.
URL’s in order of appearance:
https://mvskokemedia.com/what-are-per-capita-payments/
https://www.nigc.gov/general-counsel/indian-gaming-regulatory-act
https://www.aeaweb.org/research/has-tribal-gaming-been-a-boon-for-American-Indians.php
https://newsmaven.io/indiancountrytoday/archive/tribal-per-capitas-and-self-termination-pWhjlw0iU0SYhqUcK4dw3Q/
https://newsmaven.io/indiancountrytoday/archive/the-myth-of-indian-casino-riches-3H8eP-wHX0Wz0H4WnQjwjA/
https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/jep.29.3.185
https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr11-17.pdf
https://www.wired.com/story/free-money-the-surprising-effects-of-a-basic-income-supplied-by-government/
https://indigenouseducationtools.org/assets/primaryimages/IET05_ThePromiseofIndigenousResearchIssue5_10.1.15.pdf
https://www.chronicle.com/article/Why-So-Few-American-Indians/146715
by Karl Widerquist | Jun 13, 2018 | Opinion, The Indepentarian
This piece was originally published by the Chronogram Magazine in 1999. It’s an early example of some ideas that still form a big part of my thinking. I reproduce it here because the Chronogram does not keep content from the 1990s online.
-Hudson Valley, New York, 1999
by Karl Widerquist | Jun 9, 2018 | Opinion, The Indepentarian
Apparently, black lives don’t matter in America. For several years a lot of people have been pointing out that a lot of blacks–who aren’t guilty of capital crimes–are getting killed by police and/or in questionable cases of self-defense. Any check of the stats will show a lot more blacks are getting killed this way than whites, and a lot more whites are getting killed this way in the United States than citizens in all similar countries (including many with higher crime rates, such as the United Kingdom and France).
If black lives did matter, the response to that fact would be obvious: all human life is precious, so we would go on a national campaign to find out what every other country is doing, learn some lessons, and try to save some lives. Instead, America has done anything but taking that action. Common responses have been to say that people have made the complaint in the wrong way, that decreasing the number of civilians killed by police is somehow bad for the police officers, and that other things also kill lots of black people (as if that we’re relevant).
If black lives mattered, we wouldn’t care who complained about it or how they said it, it would matter only that human beings are at stake.
Inaction speaks loudly, and it says black lives don’t matter in America. Actually, it kind of says that white lives don’t matter either. But that’s a topic for another day.
-Karl Widerquist, Beaufort, North Carolina, June 7, 2018
