In our last discussion, I mentioned how I wished there was a proposal like this through a more capitalist way of governing instead of socialism, so I'm glad this was the topic that followed. I have never put much thought into how the government could do this, and I learned a lot from your lecture. This also ties into the point I made in our last discussion about the freedom of choice for people who depend on others. Previously I used the example of people who give homeless people food instead of money. While it is still a pleasing gesture, the argument that people make for their line of reasoning is that they are scared of what the beggars will do with their money. I argued that if you truly cared about the situation that this individual is in, you would give to them without feeling the need to have power over what they buy with it.
The concept of a Universal Basic Dividend is a much better alternative to the universal basic income model. By using a dividend, we would provide an equal distribution of the nation’s profits. This makes it easier to get support from various political ideologies, allowing economic security and freedom. In your plan, you state that 16% of the U.S. GDP goes to direct payments while capping federal spending at 9%, which I think entirely justifies its implementation. I have never wanted to implement socialism, but the idea of the government being able to provide for those who need it has always interested me. Libertarians and conservatives can both support the UBD because it still allows for individual autonomy. The UBD that you proposed reduces bureaucratic welfare systems and limits government overstepping. The direct payment to all citizens eliminates the “nanny state” or the dependency on welfare programs, empowering individuals with financial freedom. Not using systems like food stamps allows recipients to make their own decisions on what they will do with their money. From a progressive standpoint, the UBD addresses income imbalance and acknowledges the systematic inequalities that many individuals face. It is much unlike traditional welfare programs, which usually need bureaucratic oversight and require you to meet qualifications. The flat-tax-funded dividend would also create a fairer tax system, helping lower and middle-income families. Even though they are less wealthy than the rich, the amount fluctuates while the tax percentage stays the same. Those earning less than $144,000 annually would have a negative tax, meaning they would receive money rather than owe.
I think your plan ties into the teachings of this class by promoting entrepreneurship. Individuals would gain a stretch of financial flexibility to take risks in starting businesses while not fearing their personal economic instability. By canceling minimum wage requirements, more job opportunities would be provided for those with a lesser level of education and fewer skills, allowing them into the workforce and gaining experience. Tying into freedom, this would allow employees to leave exploitative and negative work environments, allowing better mental health and independence. I also liked what you said about the government no longer having to protect mismanaged companies. “Bad” or corrupt companies would no longer have to keep operating out of fear of facing dissent from the public about mass layoffs.
Listening to people’s questions at the end, I see the potential concern about overpopulation in low-cost-of-living states, such as ours. I liked your rebuttal of how this movement could instead benefit rural towns by stimulating economic growth and encouraging the development of education and experiences. Many struggling rural communities suffer from population decline since they don’t offer many job opportunities. The UBD would provide these areas and the people within them with an economic base that encourages population retention, revitalizing rural America in a sustainable manner.
Your requirements for making the dividend work all completely make sense to me. To prevent unrealistic increases in the dividend, you very wisely propose executing the UBD through a constitutional amendment. This ensures that politicians cannot increase the amount on a whim to gain voter support. There must be stability. Additionally, by relying on a constitutional Article 5 convention of the states, the proposal aligns with the democratic system process of requiring broad support from both Congress and state legislatures before it is implemented. The flat tax structure is another essential safeguard that ensures fairness and sustainability. With the first $36,000 exempt from taxation and a 25% tax applied to earnings beyond that threshold, this plan maintains economic incentives for productivity. Your plan also ensures that the government remains adequately funded. By capping federal spending at 9% of GDP, it guarantees fiscal responsibility and prevents excessive government expansion.
I’m glad that public support for universal basic income has increased so much in the past decade, with the support percentages changing from 12% to 48%. Inflation has continuously gone up over the last few decades, but the minimum wage has not. While it has continuously gone up, it does not match the level of inflation. I think that the UBD would help solve this problem more than simply raising the minimum wage would. By ensuring that the UBI fosters individual freedom, simplifies taxation, encourages entrepreneurship, and revitalizes rural communities, it offers a pragmatic and equitable approach to economic security. A Universal Basic Dividend could serve as a transformative policy that aligns with diverse political philosophies while promoting long-term economic stability.
