More on universal basic income

 We had a bit of a discussion here a few days ago about this idea, which is the most straightforward form of wealth redistribution. What if the government just gives everybody money every month? There are permutations of this. It could be enough to live on, or just a supplementary amount. It could have some strings attached. For example, in some low income countries it comes with a requirement that children attend school. But let's simplify the discussion and just say everybody gets a check that at least constitutes a poverty level income. 

Sigal Samuel at Vox discusses an experiment that is about to get underway in Germany, in which 120 people will get a check worth $1,430 every month for three years. That's probably not long enough to learn much about the ultimate effects on the life course, unless they are clearly positive, e.g. people get more schooling, actually have more career success, their children do better in school, that sort of thing. But if you're worried that it is a disincentive to work, you might not be convinced because people probably aren't going to quit their jobs knowing that the money will go away in three years. 

Nevertheless this gives Samuel an occasion to talk about other experiments along these lines, including some longer term programs, and generally results seem quite positive. People are happier, they go to school more, they even feel more motivated at work. A major problem with means tested programs is that they do indeed create a disincentive to work. If you're going to lose your benefits when you start to make more money you obviously aren't going to be very motivated to get a job, or a better job. But if the basic income comes with no strings attached then income from work is worth 100% to you. In fact it may be worth more than that because you have the opportunity to do more with it, such as investing in education or transportation that can help you get an even better job; and do more for your children. 

It's certainly affordable. According to an analysis by by Edward N. Wolff, "Net worth is highly concentrated, with the richest 1 percent (as ranked by wealth) owning 39.6 percent of total household wealth in 2016 and the top 20 percent owning 89.9 percent." (This was as of 2016, it's probably more extreme now.) So you wouldn't even have to tax them very heavily to make this happen. It's an idea that is certainly worthy of discussion. 

And please note, I said nothing -- zip, zilch, nada -- about how the tax system should be structured to raise this money. That is a separate question.