Universal Basic Income has become increasingly more popular throughout the United States in the past few years. According to Dr. Trosts’ presentation on Universal Basic Dividend, Universal Basic Income is a direct cash payment that provides for all basic necessities and is available to all people regardless of need. Dr. Trost proposes instead of an income, it would be a Universal Basic Dividend (UBD). Dr. Trost’s plan is to propose a constitutional amendment that provides all citizens a flat 16% GDP which at the moment equates to around $9,000 a year, in exchange for a flat 25% tax rate for all citizens.
While his plan does provide a monetary value for citizens it also provides many other benefits for the people. This includes more freedom to choose as a guaranteed income would allow people to leave tough jobs, neighborhoods, schools, etc. This amendment would also restrict federal government spending and influence since they will be capped at 9% GDP for spending. This will limit what federal governments control as any legal issue they cannot fund will have to be settled at the state level. The federal government will also not have to fund any companies that are too big to fail as citizens will have their basic needs met. In this amendment, Dr. Trost also included a removal of the minimum wage as the basic needs will be met. This allows many unskilled jobs to arise as well as larger competition for positions.
Dr. Trost also puts forth many downsides to this amendment that others, such as myself, believe will make the amendment fail. Most of the arguments against this amendment boil down to citizens becoming dependent on the government, and a decrease in work. While many benefits will come from this amendment, I believe it will fail for these two reasons. One issue with the amendment is that all citizens no matter their age will receive UBD. This also includes a larger dividend for the elderly (150%), which means that children and retired citizens will not be contributing to taxation while still receiving from it. I understand that it is necessary to include them, but this would drastically impact the sustainability of the program. The other main issue with this dependency on the government is that many citizens who can work will not work since their basic needs are met and they don’t wish to make any more income. Dr. Trost addresses this issue saying that some people will do this but most will want to work. I disagree, and the reason why is that there is significantly less incentive to work. Since the amendment removes minimum wage, work will more than likely be rewarded with lower wages than before, and only those who wish to specialize their work will receive wages that provide enough incentive to work. I believe that these issues will drastically lower GDP, which will cause the program to fail.