While what's good for a tiny island might not be good for the gander, I like the attached cost analysis of a negative income tax. The author points out that this might be a more practical way to deliver a basic income, and more amenable to both sides of the argument.
And at more or less no greater cost than the welfare system at time of writing. I wonder how the numbers would shake out now?
This doesn't sound terribly different from eg Alaska's Permanent Fund payouts? The main difference seems to be that PF payments fluctuate a lot, while the Marshalls plan seems to be a fixed, predictable sum.
It is very similar but works differently. Also the two programs do not have the same intent.
The US has a Compact of Free Assocation (COFA) with the Marshall Islands, which provides a lot of the funds for this. Versus Alaska where it is paid for by natural resource extraction. All that said, it is the government of the Marshall Islands making the decision to pay it out this way.
From the US point of view, this is a good program because it incentivizes people from the Marshall Islands to stay put rather than emigrate to the US mainland (which they have a right to do under the COFA).
>From the US point of view, this is a good program because it incentivizes people from the Marshall Islands to stay put rather than emigrate to the US mainland
Why is this a good thing? Naively, as an American citizen, I would rather have someone emigrate and work in America where they can provide additional labor to the mainland economy
The US is competing with China in the Pacific. Keeping those islands healthily populated by USA-sympathizers helps maintains overall US influence in the region.
Edit: LoganDark4 replied but I got an error when submitting my reply to them, so including here:
> Even the smallest crappiest studios in most areas exceed $800/mo. Then you also have utilities and food before you even approach comfortable living.
Multiple percent of the population in the small Pacific country we're discussing lives on <$3/day (<$90/mo).
> Universal basic income means something you can live on.… UBI means you don't need external support to sustain comfortable living. That's its entire purpose.
From the very first paragraph of the link you replied to: "If the level is sufficient to meet a person's basic needs (i.e., at or above the poverty line), it is considered a full basic income; if it is less than that amount, it is called a partial basic income."
This page https://wage.is/marshall-islands/ claims the average is US$168000 per year and the median US$9600 per year. [My guess is that the poverty line is close to US$5000 per year, probably higher.] This program adds US$800 per year. So it's a "universal partial basic income" instead of a "universal total basic income".
In all the discussion I remember, "universal basic income" == "universal total basic income" but perhaps I was not paying too much attention.
Your link is to the term universal. From the reporting, this payment goes to all citizens including children. Perhaps you could more clearly state your objection?
And at more or less no greater cost than the welfare system at time of writing. I wonder how the numbers would shake out now?
https://martin-farley.medium.com/how-a-negative-income-tax-c...
The US has a Compact of Free Assocation (COFA) with the Marshall Islands, which provides a lot of the funds for this. Versus Alaska where it is paid for by natural resource extraction. All that said, it is the government of the Marshall Islands making the decision to pay it out this way.
From the US point of view, this is a good program because it incentivizes people from the Marshall Islands to stay put rather than emigrate to the US mainland (which they have a right to do under the COFA).
Why is this a good thing? Naively, as an American citizen, I would rather have someone emigrate and work in America where they can provide additional labor to the mainland economy
Edit: LoganDark4 replied but I got an error when submitting my reply to them, so including here:
> Even the smallest crappiest studios in most areas exceed $800/mo. Then you also have utilities and food before you even approach comfortable living.
Multiple percent of the population in the small Pacific country we're discussing lives on <$3/day (<$90/mo).
> Universal basic income means something you can live on.… UBI means you don't need external support to sustain comfortable living. That's its entire purpose.
From the very first paragraph of the link you replied to: "If the level is sufficient to meet a person's basic needs (i.e., at or above the poverty line), it is considered a full basic income; if it is less than that amount, it is called a partial basic income."
Details aren't as sexy as the headline would lead one to believe.
This UBI is 37% of the poverty line, and the % living in poverty has dropped from 7.2% to 1.3%. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/0997063042125181...
In all the discussion I remember, "universal basic income" == "universal total basic income" but perhaps I was not paying too much attention.
This payment is 37% of the poverty line. Poverty has been reduced from 7.2% to 1.3%. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/0997063042125181...