We start with a cradle-to-grave guaranteed income, let's say $20,000 a year (indexed). However, if you are employed, then the employer gets some or all of that money. A certain level of employment is defined as "fully employed". Let's say "fully employed" is a non-temporary job paying least $40,000 a year (indexed) with full benefits a defined-benefit pension. If you are fully employed the employer gets your $20,000, but you don't care, because you make way more than that and have benefits and a pension. If you are less than fully employed (lower pay, or no benefits, or temp work), you get part of the $20,000 and the employer gets part of the $20,000. The ratios would be such that it's never more profitable for the employer to provide less than full employment, and the worker never loses money by working more. I'm willing to consider the possibility of designating a temp or non-benefit job as "fully employed" at a higher salary threshold, but it has to be high enough that it doesn't discourage employers from providing benefits or secure employment.
Children also get $20,000. However, some of the money goes to their parents/guardians, and some if it goes into an account to save for their education. The kids get to keep a relatively small amount (perhaps increasing each year) that basically functions as an allowance. When they turn 18, they start getting the full $20,000 a year. (Thus emancipating them from their parents). If they go to postsecondary right out of high school, the money in their education account is used to pay tuition and any other school-related fees. Three ideas for if they don't go to postsecondary, in ascending order of paternalism:
1. They get access to the money in the education account outright.
2. Every year, they get access to an amount of money equal to the average tuition fee that year. (Of course, if they do choose to go back to school, they get their full tuition paid even if it's higher than the average.)
3. The education account is rolled over into a retirement savings account that will pay out an annuity in retirement.
So overall, citizens are more financially secure, consumer confidence increases, government social spending is at a steady and predictable level regardless of economic conditions, employers are more motivated to create and maintain Good Jobs, the aspects of the childcare problem that can be addressed by throwing money at the problem are addressed, education is affordable, and young adults are able to emancipate themselves from their parents and launch whenever they feel like it.
2 comments:
I'm curious about how you deal with the problem inherent to ending poverty by giving everyone money (to wit, prices go up). $20,000 isn't really enough to live on anyway, at least not in New York (whichever currency); I assume that's to mitigate that.
Not everyone would get money. Only unemployed people would get the full $20,000, and partially-employed people would get part of it. People who already have a job designated as a Good Job would get nothing because they're already well-employed (Their employer would get some, but the employer is further removed from creating demand for consumer products. Plus $20,000 per employee isn't terribly significant for a successful business. (Although it could be significant for a struggling business, maybe keeping people employed longer or steadier.)
$20,000 isn't that much here either - I believe it's either just above or just below the poverty line for a single person. But as it stands, welfare only pays $585 a month for a single person, which is really shamefully punitively low and doesn't even cover any rent I've ever met. So for those people their lives would be significantly improved, but I don't see it driving inflation too much because there isn't really a market for stuff priced to people with lower income than that anyway.
The amount doesn't have to be $20,000 specifically, I just chose that because it gets the general idea across. The most common argument against cradle-to-grave guaranteed income is that people won't be motivated to work, so I chose something low enough that you could make significantly more at most decent jobs, but high enough that a person has a fighting chance of living on it.
Post a Comment