Dr. Trost has explained his views regarding universal basic income. He believes that there should be a universal basic income, or dividend, for every U.S. citizen. He believes that each citizen should receive 9,000 dollars a year, except for elderly people, which receive 1.5 times more for common medical costs. Also, families of four would receive 36,000 per family. Federal spending would be capped at 9%. There would be a 16% GDP and 25% flat tax.
The universal income tax would drastically change the working market. Dr. Trost mentioned that with the addition of the universal basic income, minimum wage would be abolished. At first, I was skeptical of this idea, because I previously worked for almost minimum wage, and I did not feel fairly compensated for my work. At first, my mind jumped to my employer paying me less than I was previously receiving and that was a scary thought. Then, I realized that as Dr. Trost said, this would give me more freedom to leave the job. Most people who also were at my place of work were there solely to make ends meet and felt trapped because they didn’t know if leaving the job and finding a new one would be a burden on them financially. With the addition of the universal basic income, individuals would have more freedom to search for different jobs depending on skill level without it being a heavy financial burden. Universal basic income would also increase the availability of jobs because of the decrease in risk that comes with being an entrepreneur. With less risk, more people would be encouraged to start their own businesses and therefore would increase the job market. Therefore, increasing the job marketing entirely and creating more opportunities for everyone.
With the addition of a universal basic income, the risk associated with new entrepreneurial ventures would be down significantly. Thus, entrepreneurial ability would be increased. With a universal income, overall willingness to create a new company would increase. Creativity would also increase since less mental effort would be focused on trying to make ends meet. With increased creativity and willingness, and decreased risk the overall market would increase. This would be an incentive for people to go forward with starting a business. Many people hold back from starting a business because of the risk associated with starting a business. Many people run the risk of losing their money, home, or vehicle when starting a new business. With universal basic income, more of the individuals that were once scared to start businesses might be encouraged to have a startup. The increase in businesses would increase the innovation and technological advancements of the nation. The employers themselves would also have to deal with competitive markets. With the addition of competitive markets, employers are forced to create better work environments, more creative products, and better customer satisfaction.
With the addition of a universal basic income, more freedoms would be possible for many marginalized and impoverished groups. Without as many financial burdens on the individual for basic needs, one can focus on self-improvement. The individual also has more freedom in other aspects of life. With this universal basic income, one has the option to find a place to live that is best suited for one’s life. With the added UBI, all welfare programs would be nonexistent. This would take away the often low quality homes and schools used by underprivileged people. With the UBI, the people living in these impoverished places would have more of a choice to move elsewhere and possibly improve their quality of life. Individuals could move to places with more economic opportunity to find a better job. Families could move to a community with better schools to fit their needs. With better schools, there is a higher chance of the child making more money in their lifetime compared to a poor-quality school. It improves fairness by making more freedoms possible for underprivileged and marginalized groups of people.
My suggestion for this universal basic income plan is to somehow implement a system where the money given by to the individual could only be used for its intended purpose, as in food, shelter and clothing. As seen in 2020, people who were given stimulus checks by the government were excited, but ended up spending all the money very quickly and for things that they didn’t necessarily need. To ensure the same thing doesn’t happen again, there should be a requirement about the percentage of the money that is used for its intended purpose.
