Once a week.
Subscribe to our weekly newsletter.
The right-wing case for basic income
How does the largest welfare program imaginable have libertarian supporters?
- The idea for a universal basic income, or UBI, is increasingly popular.
- While it seems like a left-wing handout, many prominent right wing thinkers have endorsed the idea.
- The libertarian version of UBI does have a few key differences from the more standard version.
We've all heard of it: basic income, the freedom dividend, the income guarantee, or any of the other names for the program that would give everybody a payment as a right of citizenship. Such plans have been discussed by American thinkers for at least two hundred years and have gained increasing attention and popularity in the modern age.
On the face of it, it seems like a rather left-wing concept. The idea of sending everybody a check each month for existing seems as Marxist as it gets. It also doesn't help that many of the best-known supporters of the idea are on the left. However, the idea's popularity isn't limited to red book clubs. There are right-wing supporters of the concept as well, among them was famous economist Milton Friedman.
The libertarian case for the basic income
For those who don't know, Milton Friedman was an economist working out of the University of Chicago during the middle part of the 20th century. A leading thinker behind monetarism, he favored tinkering with the economy through controlling the size of the money supply rather than through fiscal policy. Even people on the American center-left acknowledge his brilliance as they criticize his mistakes.
When it came to the problem of poverty, Friedman supported letting the free market and private charity have a chance to solve it first. However, he understood that dealing with it effectively at the large scale likely required at least some state intervention. As he explains in Capitalism and Freedom, its the free-rider problem that causes this:
It can be argued that private charity is insufficient because the benefits from it accrue to people other than those who make the gifts [...] I am distressed by the sight of poverty; I am benefited by its alleviation; but I am benefited equally whether I or someone else pays for its alleviation; the benefits of other people's charity therefore partly accrue to me. To put it differently, we might all of us be willing to contribute to the relief of poverty, provided everyone else did. We might not be willing to contribute the same amount without such assurance. In small communities, public pressure can suffice to realize the proviso even with private charity. In the large impersonal communities that are increasingly coming to dominate our society, it is much more difficult for it to do so.
He argued that this justified having the state take steps to reduce poverty, as it is harder to skip out on paying money to reduce poverty when that is tax fraud rather then miserliness. This didn't mean Friedman supported the welfare state though; he argued instead for a much simpler solution in the form of the negative income tax, or NIT.
In our current welfare system, there are a myriad of programs that each deal with a different aspect of life for the poor. One program provides food aid, another deals with housing, yet another provides low-cost utilities, and another one deals with income security for the elderly. A large number of regulations, such as minimum wage laws, exist to help hold wages high enough to keep other working people off the welfare rolls.
Friedman viewed this multitude of agencies as wasteful and suggested that a single program would do the same job with a smaller government by just giving cash to people who needed it. As a libertarian who placed a high value on the freedom of choice, he also suggested it was a much more dignified way of helping the poor than telling them what they could and could not do with the money we give them as is currently the case with things like food stamps.
How would it work?
The mechanism is relatively simple. Dr. Friedman explains it above in his interview on Firing Line.
For those who didn't watch the clip, it is easily explained. The income tax system is changed a bit to include an exemption based on family size. Only earned income above that point is taxed. If you make less than the exemption amount, you instead receive a subsidy.
The size of the subsidy would change based on how much you make and would also be subject to a subsidy rate. This means that if a person makes $1000 less than the exemption point, they would only get a certain percentage of that difference back as a subsidy. Friedman argued that the subsidy rate shouldn't any higher than 50 percent, as it would discourage work if it were raised past that point.
As an example, suppose we lived in a society where with an NIT where the exemption for me is $10,000, and the subsidy rate is 50 percent. If I were to only make $8000, I would pay no taxes and get back half of the $2000 difference between what I made and the exemption point, or $1000.
If I made exactly $10,000, I would neither pay taxes nor receive a subsidy. If I made more than that, I would start to pay income taxes on the income above that point. If I made absolutely nothing, I would get the largest subsidy possible under this system, $5000, which would be the "guaranteed" income under this arrangement.
Such a program would also have the advantage of not having a "welfare trap," the point where making more money at work causes welfare payments to go down by a larger amount and leaves the recipient worse off. The trap is a well-known problem and is bashed by many economists as a significant flaw that discourages people from trying to improve their situation.
The numbers used above were just for discussion; the exact numbers used in a working system would reflect economic realities. It should be said that Friedman intended to keep the guaranteed rate low enough to encourage people to still work while at the same time being high enough to correct for the failures of private charity.
Has it ever been tried?
Yes, it has, and it worked.
Several experiments in the 1970s in the United States and Canada showed that the negative income tax could work as intended. The guaranteed income was set as equal to the poverty threshold and, as predicted, the labor supply fell because of this.
This fall was not as significant as experts feared, however. The simultaneous rise in high school graduation rates suggests that at least part of this fall in labor supply was caused people having the economic security to stop working and finish their education. Claims that the program resulted in an increased divorce rate were initially reported but are now known to be the result of a statistical error.
What do others think of the NIT?
Criticism of the idea comes from two directions.
On the right, critics often object on a fundamental level to any redistribution or an income tax of any kind. Some who do support the NIT see it merely as the best version of a bad deal.
On the left, criticism tends to focus on either the mechanism of the NIT or on the details of Friedman's plan. Josh Martin, an executive committee member at the US Basic Income Guarantee Network, explained his objections this way:
A negative income tax and a universal basic income seek to achieve the same goal — to ensure an income floor for everyone. But, given the choice between the two, a UBI is preferable as it solidifies this income floor as a universal benefit, while an NIT would only provide the income floor to those who need it. This conditionality makes it easier for politicians and for people who don't receive the NIT to justify cutting the program as they don't receive the benefit personally.
This concern that a purely redistributive program will be subject to political difficulties later is a common one. It is part of the reason why regressive taxes on the poor fund Social Security — you can't attack it in the way Mr. Martin describes. A system of basic income that pays everybody a set amount each month is similarly protected; it's hard to cut a program everybody gets direct benefits from.
Universal basic income is an increasingly popular idea that will likely exist in some form someday. It enjoys support from every part of the political spectrum for various reasons. While the far left and the far right might disagree on why a universal basic income program is needed or what form it should take, the fact that they agree on the need for such a program is surprising enough to almost count as an endorsement in itself.
The idea of 'absolute time' is an illusion. Physics and subjective experience reveal why.
- Since Einstein posited his theory of general relativity, we've understood that gravity has the power to warp space and time.
- This "time dilation" effect occurs even at small levels.
- Outside of physics, we experience distortions in how we perceive time — sometimes to a startling extent.
Physics without time<p>In his book "The Order of Time," Italian theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli suggests that our perception of time — our sense that time is forever flowing forward — could be a highly subjective projection. After all, when you look at reality on the smallest scale (using equations of quantum gravity, at least), time vanishes.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"If I observe the microscopic state of things," writes Rovelli, "then the difference between past and future vanishes … in the elementary grammar of things, there is no distinction between 'cause' and 'effect.'"</p><p>So, why do we perceive time as flowing <em>forward</em>? Rovelli notes that, although time disappears on extremely small scales, we still obviously perceive events occur sequentially in reality. In other words, we observe entropy: Order changing into disorder; an egg cracking and getting scrambled.</p><p>Rovelli says key aspects of time are described by the second law of thermodynamics, which states that heat always passes from hot to cold. This is a one-way street. For example, an ice cube melts into a hot cup of tea, never the reverse. Rovelli suggests a similar phenomenon might explain why we're only able to perceive the past and not the future.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"Any time the future is definitely distinguishable from the past, there is something like heat involved," Rovelli wrote for the <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/ce6ef7b8-429a-11e8-93cf-67ac3a6482fd" target="_blank"><em>Financial Times</em></a>. "Thermodynamics traces the direction of time to something called the 'low entropy of the past', a still mysterious phenomenon on which discussions rage."</p>
The strange subjectivity of time<p>Time moves differently atop a mountain than it does on a beach. But you don't need to travel any distance at all to experience strange distortions in your perception of time. In moments of life-or-death fear, for example, your brain would release large amounts of adrenaline, which would speed up your internal clock, causing you to perceive the outside world as moving slowly.<br></p><p>Another common distortion occurs when we focus our attention in particular ways.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"If you're thinking about how time is <em>currently</em> passing by, the biggest factor influencing your time perception is attention," Aaron Sackett, associate professor of marketing at the University of St. Thomas, told <em><a href="https://gizmodo.com/why-does-time-slow-down-and-speed-up-1840133782" target="_blank">Gizmodo</a></em>.<em> "</em>The more attention you give to the passage of time, the slower it tends to go. As you become distracted from time's passing—perhaps by something interesting happening nearby, or a good daydreaming session—you're more likely to lose track of time, giving you the feeling that it's slipping by more quickly than before. "Time flies when you're having fun," they say, but really, it's more like "time flies when you're thinking about other things." That's why time will also often fly by when you're definitely <em>not</em> having fun—like when you're having a heated argument or are terrified about an upcoming presentation."</p><p>One of the most mysterious ways people experience time-perception distortions is through psychedelic drugs. In an interview with <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/apr/14/carlo-rovelli-exploding-commonsense-notions-order-of-time-interview" target="_blank"><em>The Guardian</em></a>, Rovelli described a time he experimented with LSD.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"It was an extraordinarily strong experience that touched me also intellectually," he said. "Among the strange phenomena was the sense of time stopping. Things were happening in my mind but the clock was not going ahead; the flow of time was not passing any more. It was a total subversion of the structure of reality."<br></p><p>It seems few scientists or philosophers believe time is completely an illusion.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"What we call <em>time</em> is a rich, stratified concept; it has many layers," Rovelli told <em><a href="https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.4.20190219a/full/" target="_blank">Physics Today</a>.</em> "Some of time's layers apply only at limited scales within limited domains. This does not make them illusions."</p>What <em>is</em> an illusion is the idea that time flows at an absolute rate. The river of time might be flowing forever forward, but it moves at different speeds, between people, and even within your own mind.
The world's 10 most affected countries are spending up to 59% of their GDP on the effects of violence.
- Conflict and violence cost the world more than $14 trillion a year.
- That's the equivalent of $5 a day for every person on the planet.
- Research shows that peace brings prosperity, lower inflation and more jobs.
- Just a 2% reduction in conflict would free up as much money as the global aid budget.
- Report urges governments to improve peacefulness, especially amid COVID-19.
The lush biodiversity of South America's rainforests is rooted in one of the most cataclysmic events that ever struck Earth.
- One especially mysterious thing about the asteroid impact, which killed the dinosaurs, is how it transformed Earth's tropical rainforests.
- A recent study analyzed ancient fossils collected in modern-day Colombia to determine how tropical rainforests changed after the bolide impact.
- The results highlight how nature is able to recover from cataclysmic events, though it may take millions of years.