I posted an article about a guaranteed basic income a bit more than a year ago,[1] and my posting of the article was prompted by noticing that other Hacker News participants had commented about such policies before, followed by my reading some articles that summarized Charles Murray's book about a guaranteed basic income. Ideologically, Murray would probably be even more in favor of no government welfare payments at all (but ask him directly for his current view), but when he wrote his book In Our Hands: A Plan to Replace the Welfare State,[2] Murray's basic argument was that governments are already spending billions and billions of dollars derived from taxpayers for means-tested welfare programs or other income transfer programs that are more complicated administratively than a guaranteed basic income, and a nationwide guaranteed basic income covers everyone at less administrative expense.

Murray's book goes into detail about how much a program of guaranteed income for everyone would cost in the United States, and suggests some probable effects that would have on everyone's everyday behavior. I read the book a year or two after it was published.

Murray's own summary of his argument[3] and reviews of his book[4] may inform the discussion here. Big public policy proposals are not easy to discuss, but the big public policy proposal of a guaranteed basic income for all is a response to existing policy of supposedly targeted social welfare programs that are just about equally expensive in the benefits they provide, but much more costly to administer.

As a matter of personal opinion, I am still thinking about whether or not a basic income guarantee is a good idea, but I definitely want to figure out if spending no more in total for social welfare by directly transferring cash to all citizens would simplify administration of welfare programs and allow more individual choice about how to use the money.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6309882

[2] http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0844742236

[3] http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/focus/pdfs/foc242a.pdf

[4] http://www.aei.org/article/society-and-culture/poverty/in-ou...

http://www.conallboyle.com/BasicIncomeNewEcon/MurrayReview.p...

http://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/region_focu...

http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=296

It will be interesting to see what happens if Switzerland tries out this policy. Thus far there hasn't been much mention in this thread of an author who has written a whole book about how a basic guaranteed income policy might work in the United States. Charles Murray's book In Our Hands: A Plan to Replace the Welfare State,

http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0844742236

goes into detail about how much a program of guaranteed income for everyone would cost in the United States, and suggests some probable effects that would have on everyone's everyday behavior. I read the book a year or two after it was published.

Murray's own summary of his argument

http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/focus/pdfs/foc242a.pdf

and reviews of his book

http://www.aei.org/article/society-and-culture/poverty/in-ou...

http://www.conallboyle.com/BasicIncomeNewEcon/MurrayReview.p...

http://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/region_focu...

http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=296

may inform the discussion here. The policy proposal of a basic income guarantee is interesting because

a) no country has ever tried it, really, so there isn't a real-world experience case to look at yet,

and

b) a remarkable variety of people from otherwise differing points of view have proposed it over the years.

I'm still trying to make up my mind how the trade-offs of a policy like a basic guaranteed income nationwide would compare to the trade-offs of "targeted" social welfare programs for elderly, disabled, and poor.

This issue comes up from time to time here on Hacker News, which is why I submitted the current story. The policy proposal of a basic income guarantee is interesting because

a) no country has ever tried it, really, so there isn't a real-world experience case to look at yet,

and

b) a remarkable variety of people from otherwise differing points of view have proposed it over the years.

Charles Murray's book In Our Hands: A Plan to Replace the Welfare State,

http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0844742236

goes into detail about how much a program of guaranteed income for everyone would cost in the United States, and suggests some probable effects that would have on everyone's everyday behavior. I read the book a year or two after it was published.

Murray's own summary of his argument

http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/focus/pdfs/foc242a.pdf

and reviews of his book

http://www.aei.org/article/society-and-culture/poverty/in-ou...

http://www.conallboyle.com/BasicIncomeNewEcon/MurrayReview.p...

http://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/region_focu...

http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=296

may inform the discussion here. Big public policy proposals are not easy to discuss, but the big public policy proposal of a guaranteed basic income for all is a response to existing policy of supposedly targeted social welfare programs that are just about equally expensive in the benefits they provide, but much more costly to administer.

As a matter of personal opinion, I am still thinking about whether or not a basic income guarantee is a good idea, but I definitely want to figure out if spending no more in total for social welfare by directly transferring cash to all citizens would simplify administration of welfare programs and allow more individual choice about how to use the money.

I see no one in this active discussion has mentioned yet Charles Murray's book In Our Hands: A Plan to Replace the Welfare State,

http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0844742236

in which Murray goes into detail about how much a program of guaranteed income for everyone would cost in the United States, and some probable effects that would have on everyone's everyday behavior. I read the book a year or two after it was published.

Murray's own summary of his argument

http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/focus/pdfs/foc242a.pdf

and reviews of his book

http://www.aei.org/article/society-and-culture/poverty/in-ou...

http://www.conallboyle.com/BasicIncomeNewEcon/MurrayReview.p...

http://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/region_focu...

http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=296

may inform the discussion here. Big public policy proposals are not easy to discuss, but the big public policy proposal of a guaranteed basic income for all is a response to existing policy of supposedly targeted social welfare programs that are just about equally expensive, but more costly to administer.

There's a book for that:

http://www.amazon.com/Our-Hands-Replace-Welfare-State/dp/084...

Well, this book is actually about the idea of giving government payments (annual "welfare") to ALL Americans, and what that might involve. The author points out that the total cost of all transfer payments in the United States economy is coming closer and closer to providing basic subsistence to every American.

Book about a similar plan for the United States:

http://www.amazon.com/Our-Hands-Replace-Welfare-State/dp/084...

These numbers are really disturbing. I think something like Charles Murray's "The Plan" ( http://www.amazon.com/Our-Hands-Replace-Welfare-State/dp/084... ) where each citizen just recieves a $10,000 check every year has a lot of merit. The poor are still helped, but it eliminates the disincentives to do work. Since it's just shuffling dollars, it also minimizes the amount of money lost in the bureaucracy. Another idea is to turn the U.S. government into a joint stock corporation and simply give every citizen dividend paying shares. That way the pie is divided equally, once and for all, and then government can simply concentrate on growing the pie.

Charles Murray wrote a whole book, In Our Hands : A Plan To Replace The Welfare State,

http://www.amazon.com/Our-Hands-Replace-Welfare-State/dp/084...

on this subject and how it might work in the United States.