Universal Basic Income: For the Libertarian, Conservative, Progressive, and Communist.
Defining the Terms
Steve Trost’s lecture was a defense for Universal Basic Income (UBI), an idea that would garner support from the Libertarian, Conservative, Progressive, and Communist, but not the Socialist. Before presenting the plan, Steve Trost broke down the definition of Universal Basic Income. Universal referred to the notion that it was all encompassing, so everyone in the area that participates in UBI would receive UBI. Basic refers to the amount received from UBI which would be enough to cover necessities. Income referred to what would be given, as in payments. Steve Trost proposed that instead of Income, the word Dividend should be used. Dividend is a form of payment given to all shareholders, or those who bring value to a business. This better matches how UBI works, which Dr. Trost explores later in the lecture. I will touch on this change of Dividend to Income. I believe that Dr. Trost chose to change these words because it changes where the effort is placed in gaining the UBI. For example, if the UBI was applied to the state of Oklahoma, a simplified version of UBI would be everyone would get a certain amount of money from the Oklahoma government. Titled as income, this makes it seem that everyone in Oklahoma works for its government and is getting paid for that work. On the other hand, Dividend makes it seem that people are bringing value to Oklahoma, whether working for its government or not. This better describes how UBI would work or at least to my understanding.
Defining the Audience
Dr. Trost continues through the lecture, setting up his potential audience. For his Libertarian crowd, he describes them as focused on autonomy, freedom and individualism. Conservatives are described as a lesser version of Libertarians, focusing more on lessening federal-governmental power. Progressives, on the other hand, support a bigger government since their focus is on the interests of the common people at large. Communism goes a step further focusing on government supporting every citizen through commonwealth. With his audience defined, Dr. Trost uses an example of crude oil to showcase why Socialism is not apart from the UBI conversation. He compares Alaska and Venezuela. Alaska had applied to the Alaskan Permanent fund, which gave dividends from the profits of the Alaska crude oil production, which is under private control. Venezuela, as a socialist country, had its government control the production of crude oil. The difference resulted in Alaskan residents receiving dividends from crude oil profit as the plan said, while in Venezuela, only those in the government who controlled the oil production saw the profit from crude oil. I pose a question here which I am curious how the Alaskan government overcame this. How did the crude oil companies stay motivated to keep production at a high? The dividends were coming out of their companies’ profit, so even they would also receive the dividends as Alaskan citizens, they would still be losing money paying off all those dividends. Many companies under that pressure might fail or try a way around paying off dividends. How did the Alaskan government keep these companies motivated to continue work?
The UBI Plan
Supporters of the UBI are F. A. Hayek and Vernon Howard. Vernon Howard was reported saying that true “freedom was measured by the things they can walk away from.” Dr. Trost explains this as with example of education. There are some families in America who seek a higher form of education because the education their children are receiving is not up to standards. However, they do not have the financial power to remove themselves from that educational institute. Dr. Trost claims that UBI gives a chance to walk away from situations, such as a lesser form of education. However, to enact UBI, federal spending of any kind would have to be capped at 9%. This would shut down many other organizations that Dr. Trost claims would be covered by UBI. The UBI plan that Steve Trost proposed was that it would take out 16% of the national GDP, a 26% flat tax rate, give $9,000 annually, $46,000 for the elderly, $36,000 for families of four. I am concerned about what merits as ‘the freedom to walk away.’ There are uncontrollable circumstances that damage many people fiscally, and for that the UBI makes sense. But there are also people who are damaged by their own risk. Would not the UBI negate a portion of risk, convincing people to go into ventures of more harmful risk? I feel that the negative effect of UBI would be less planning on the side of entrepreneurs with more disastrous failures.
The Objections, the Non-Negotiables, and the Benefits
Dr. Trost finishes his lecture with a list of arguments, non-negotiables that might disprove the arguments, and benefits. Many objections to UBI are concerned about too much government control. Many are concerned that the government might become a like a nanny state. Fears that senses of entitlement and lack of incentive might result from an annual UBI. Working as a hobby might disappear entirely. To prevent some of these fears from happening, Dr. Trost presents the non-negotiables.
- UBI must be an amendment, because this way Congress cannot control or add on to it.
- It must be tied to the national GDP, since this would still encourage production. However, it would not change based on geographical location.
- The government must adopt a flat tax, and no other taxes.
- The government must eliminate all welfare programs, since now citizens should have the funds to cover them.
- Minimal wage must disappear because this would encourage companies to expand their work force.
- UBI is limited to only US citizens.
- No encumbrance can be placed upon recipients of UBI payments.
The projected benefits, if all the rules are followed, would be the freedom to walk away, companies to big to fail no longer receiving governmental help, single tax return, easier for start-up companies, increase mobility, communal education, and no minimum wage would rise the opportunity for low skill jobs. Dr. Trost ends his presentation saying that UBI is plausible but not probable. It lowers the government’s power too much to be accepted. My main concern would be UBI years after it was applied. The non-negotiables cleared many of my original concerns, but I am concerned about a sitting government. For instance, income tax was never apart of the original Constitution, but not it is the most prevalent taxes. I am concerned about the future mutation of UBI. Will it change into something requiring certain criteria to receive it? That is my main concern.