UBI vs. Food Stamps
Dr. Steve Trost, whose speech advocates for a universal basic income (UBI), starts by clarifying that it is not a socialist view to want a UBI. In fact, Trost tells us that the UBI he is proposing would improve autonomy, freedom, and individualism while upholding libertarian, conservative, and progressive ideals and limiting federal power. He tells us that this is not a socialist concept, because instead of the government having a monopoly on income for redistribution, it would just be taken from taxes. Coming from a background in poverty, a UBI has always been intriguing to me. I often wonder what my childhood would have looked like if my mom had had the funds to pay for basic things like toilet paper and food. The difference, however, is that I have always believed that government programs would be the solution to that, but I can tell you right now that that isn’t true. I grew up on food stamps (EBT) and section 8 housing, and it kept my mom from working. The benefits outweighed what she could have made by working, and the instant she would have gotten a job, all of those benefits would have been completely stripped away. That left me and my siblings in a house where we could barely afford to pay for toiletries and other basic needs. We often ended up counting pennies and walking to the dollar store to buy toilet paper. That being said, that is why I was willing to listen to Dr. Trost’s whole speech. The idea that those social welfare programs would be replaced by a much better system is something I wanted to hear more about.
[Image Source] (https://www.nbcnews.com/better/lifestyle/how-one-man-developed-money-blueprint-system-get-out-debt-ncna994566)
Not Socialism
Trost took some time to compare Alaska’s permanent fund to a socialist country, Venezuela. Both places use oil as a means to provide money to its citizens; however, there is one big difference, as Trost points out, which is that in Alaska, the oil company is privately owned. This is as compared to Venezuela, where the government has a monopoly on the oil industry. Trost explains how, in this case, that socialism is the wrong solution, as Venezuela is no longer a functioning/thriving country due to “poor management”. I would like to, once again, point out that a huge part of Venezuela’s failure currently has to do with the United States sanctions on them, especially when it comes to the oil dividend (CRS). Nonetheless, the socialist part of that equation does not have to exist, I agree. Going back to even the 1940s, Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman (famous economists, not socialists) advocated for the UBI, and according to Trost, the view on a UBI has become a lot more accepting, as now almost have of the United States thinks a UBI is a good idea. I think a big part of that is poverty and lack of resources, for sure. Including myself, most people can’t survive on what they currently make at just one job. I work two jobs on top of being a full-time student (with scholarships and loans), and I still barely make it month to month. The whole living paycheck to paycheck thing really isn’t a good standard of living. If I had a cushion to fall back on like $9000, as Trost proposes, then maybe I wouldn’t constantly be worried about whether I could buy groceries.
Cycle of Dependency and Poverty
Trost mentions in his speech that the proposed UBI would break the cycle of dependency that government programs like welfare and food stamps cause. I wanted to touch on that idea again, because I feel very strongly about it.
"Our freedom can be measured by the number of things we can walk away from" -Vernon Howard
This quote is important because government programs like section 8, food stamps, and welfare, do not allow people the mobility they deserve. If it is supposed to be supplemental, or if it is supposed to help, then why is it that my mom could never walk away? Why is it, then, that my sister now cannot walk away? Why is it that my grandma cannot walk away? It seriously hurts to see that generations of my family are stuck in a loop of dependency on government programs that don’t even give them the standard of living they need! As I mentioned earlier, it is set up so that if you get a job, you’re screwed out of housing and food. I know that even Dr. Trost mentioned that his father stayed on welfare until they no longer offered it because no job would compete. This is the biggest issue, which is why Trost proposes a UBI in his speech.
Objections and Logistics
Let’s start by talking about what Trost is really proposing. He would want to cap federal spending at 9% of the GDP so that leftover money could be contributed to the UBI. 16% of GDP would go to the UBI, meaning each person would get $9,000 a year, with adjustments to retired people. This counts for families too, which means a family of 4 would get $36,000 a year. This would largely be paid for by taxes which would be at 25%. This would mean that if someone earned $36,000 on their own in a year, they would essentially be tax neutral. This UBI would only truly work, according to Trost, if it was made an amendment in the constitution. This is a very detailed plan, which is what makes it a proposal and not an “idea”. The benefits, according to Trost, would be competition in education, providing more equal opportunity. Trost says this would also start communal style education communities that will be created specifically for learning opportunities, such as art schools. Some people have qualms with the UBI, including people relying on the government for living, elimination of work as character development, and a mentality of entitlement. Here is what I have to say about that: living is a right, not a privilege; and in order to live in the country as it is, people need food and shelter. Those things should be provided when they need to be. It is my right as a human being to have food and shelter. I shouldn’t be called “lazy” or “entitled” for needing help. That plays into the idea that poor people are poor because they are morally wrong, which is just an unfair concept. Trost proposes with the UBI that there be no restrictions on wage, meaning no minimum wage. I don't really know if I agree with that, because that gives the opportunity for corruption in work places. Poor people would still stay at the bottom in this case. I will say, the opportunities of education that come with a UBI would solve some of those issues, but imagining someone working for $0.50 an hour to pay for, I don't know, medical bills, would be unfair. I also don’t know if it’s the best idea to just make this proposal a constitutional amendment right off the bat. What if it doesn’t function how it’s supposed to? The process of ratifying it would be a lot tougher.
Final Thoughts
Freedom is my right as a human, and I knew that when I was able to walk away from my mother’s house and break the cycle of poverty in my family. I like the idea that I would be able to walk away from any situation.
This wasn’t included in the speech, but it would even give mobility to those in abusive households. I really think that even though I was leaning toward socialist ideology, the idea that I could keep my standard of living with adjustments like a UBI sounds much better. I think it’s also important to educate people on how social welfare programs trap people in poverty, and it isn’t their fault. There are so many factors that lead individuals and families into poverty, and it is so unfair to assume that they are choosing that life. Whether we like it or not, society is not functioning as it should. The homeless population is 582,462 people in the United States, with even more people who are starving. A UBI seriously increases mobility, and it would certainly get people off their feet and save lives.
Works Cited
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10715#:~:text=In%202020%20and%202021%2C%20Treasury,oil%20in%20violation%20of%20sanctions.
https://www.security.org/resources/homeless-statistics/#:~:text=Data%20Appendix-,American%20Homelessness%20in%202022%3A%20An%20Overview,2020%2C%20yet%20remained%20steady%20at%20.