Give everyone $10,000

[quaoar]

That's the big idea in a new book by libertarian author Charles Murray called "In Your Hands," that is getting attention in the press and at blogs like Andrew Sullivan.

The idea is that you take all the public money being spent on welfare -- for corporations as well as people -- and redistribute it in annual $10,000 checks to everyone over the age of 21 -- even Bill Gates. Everyone would then be responsible for his/her own health care, retirement, etc. This plan would eliminate Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security and corporate subsidies.

Of course, even though the theory is that people would have the freedom to make their own choices, it still requires that some of the money be spent on health insurance and retirement savings.

To me, this sounds like the flat tax -- a simple idea that sounds logical and workable but breaks down when you get to the gritty details -- and there are always gritty details. But this guy is a well-known author on Plant Conservative so expect to see this idea repeated a lot.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000039&sid=ax.gAzNmF5D4&refer=columnist_ferguson

The cash grant would be tax-free for anyone earning $25,000 or less. But no one, regardless of income, would have more than $5,000 of his grant taxed away.

Murray has crunched the numbers. Because the cost of the plan would accelerate more slowly than the rapidly increasing cost of the current system, by 2020 it would total $549 billion less than the status quo.

This calculation excludes the transition costs of moving from the old system to the new -- but that's one of those practical details about which we're supposed to suspend judgment. (You can see why social scientists like thought experiments.)

< snip >

Portions of the grant would be required to go to health insurance and retirement savings. Even with these restrictions, a father who works full-time for the minimum wage and a mother who stays home to care for a child would have an income 38 percent above the poverty line.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

1. I'm interested in hearing what folks say about this

I don't know enough about economy to comment much, other than saying that at 25 I woulda had a whole lot of fun spending that money. Knowing me, I would have much left by now.

[meegbear]

2. Never trust an arch-conservative with a sex fetish

[Kingshakabobo]

17. That's for sure. A friend of mine used to date him.

I can't take him seriously after I met him once in some sleazy bar. I, of course, was lost and on my way to grandmothers house.}(

[Sammy Pepys]

3. Not that I'd mind, but....

1) How is the guv going to make sure the prescribed portion goes to medical expenses or retirement? Sounds like a libertarian is asking for more government monitoring of personal expenditures.

2) It won't do anything to solve the disconnect in services the wealthy receive over the poor.

[quaoar]

4. I imagine

that if this plan were implemented, companies would quit providing health insurance and expect everyone to use their government checks for coverage. And I imagine that buying one's own coverage and setting aside money for retirement would eat that $10K up real fast.

[Maraya1969]

5. I just LOVE what he says about Europe

"If you want to see the enervating effects of the all- encompassing welfare state, he says, look at Europe, where marriage and birth rates have plunged and work and religion have lost their traditional standing as sources of happiness and personal satisfaction.

With Disdain

In Europe, he says with evident disdain, ``the purpose of life is to while away the time as pleasantly as possible.''

God forbid anyone whiles away in a pleasant manner. :rofl:


The first paragraph sounds too much like a fundy. And someone bitching about the birth rates dropping is scary.

[Mythsaje]

14. To enjoy life?

Oh, the humanity.

Sheesh. What an ass. And I don't mean donkey.

[HFishbine]

6. Breakdown

"Portions of the grant would be required to go to health insurance and retirement savings. "

I guess this is where the idea gets a little shakey. You see, medicaide and social security are safety nets -- they give everybody a minimum of protection against being too sick or too old to procure your won help.

$10,000 a year does no such thing, even if portions are required to be set aside for health insurance and retirement. Investments don't always yeild a positive return and inlfation can destroy the value of savings. With health insurance costs growing at about 10% a year, by 2020, it will represent only a couple months' premiums.

No doubt that some portion of people, maybe even the majority, would find a way to manage an extra $10,000 a year so that they would never need social security or medicaide (that's probalby the case for many people already), but there will be some portion of the population who, through no fault of their own, will find themselves in need and if you've eliminated the safety net, then be prepared for human catastrophe.

[quaoar]

10. Yes

I haven't read the book, so I don't know whether he gets into all the details. But you would have to have some kind of fallback program that would rescue people who were victims of fraudulent insurance companies and ripoff artists.

[HFishbine]

16. Well

As I pointed out, the potential roadblocks are not just fraud and ripoffs. But, nonetheless, you recognize a need for a safety net and there we are -- $10,000 per person, per year and a need to maintaine Social Security and Medicaid.

[The_Casual_Observer]

7. Stupid

Instantly, everything would have a price tag of $10,000 right out of the chute.

It's just like "vouchers" for private school, the minute they start it, the tuition immediately increases by the amount of the voucher.

Unregulated and unmanaged spending, subject to "free market" forces ALWAYS turns into a free-for-all fraud. You only have to look at what has happened to our reconstruction money in Iraq to see a prime example.

[ktlyon]

8. The big payoff in the single payer system is control of profit

profit, high executive salaries, high drug costs would continue in this idea
and
What would a tax plan look like that would pay?

[SteppingRazor]

9. This would cause hyperinflation and destroy the social safety net

Nuff said

[mikeiddy]

11. Astoundingly dumb

In the name of reducing government, continue to tax people at current rates, just so the government can cut $10,000 checks for everyone, then require the money to be spent on (presumably private) health insurance and retirement plans. A single payer health plan would reduce the cost even more.

[quaoar]

12. Another problem

is that you would have to require insurance companies to accept everyone and at the same rate. Otherwise, people with major medical problems would either have nowhere to go or would have to spend much more than the $10,000.

Insurance companies would try to arrange it so they only had to cover the healthiest and youngest people.

[mikeiddy]

15. Good point, and

as The_Casual_Observer pointed out, insurance coverage would likely cost $10,000, the day after the plan is implemented.

[Warpy]

13. $10,000 doesn't go as far as it used to

and won't even cover a c-section, an appendectomy, or any other health condition requiring surgery.

Retirement? On $10,000? Even if you're 20 and are lucky enough to find a few good investments, it's not going to grow that fast.

College education? Have you checked what tuition and books cost? How about room and board?

This is another cheapass program that stiffs the poor in the name of being "fair" to Bill Gates.

It's horseshit. Put the money where it is most needed. Stiff the rich, they've stolen enough from the rest of us.