Sorry for the long post guys, was busy at work, had to wait until after to pay proper attention to this.
First up, some links on libertarian proposals for this:
https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-case-basic-income - reduce size and scope of government by eliminating bloated bureaucracies, and reducing 'paternalism', IE people poking their noses into what poor people spend their money on.
https://www.cato-unbound.org/2014/08/04/matt-zwolinski/pragmatic-libertarian-case-basic-income-guarantee - recommends $10k/year, which is more than my $6k, but meh.
http://basicincome.org/news/2016/08/us-johnson-supports-basic-income-libertarian-principles/That's basic living expenses. Show me privacy on Maslow's hierarchy. Plenty of places in the world, 4+ adults in what typically passes for a 1 bedroom place here is pretty common, and they're healthy. Americans aren't a special species with different basic needs. Heck, military barracks and the service members who have lived in them for extended periods are proof of that.
Indeed, which is why I point out that $6k per adult, assuming you have 4 living together, actually reach the federal poverty line. Well, within a few dollars.
Don't want to have 3 roommates? Get a job!
Could I live like that indefinitely? Sure. Would I want to? Not on a bet.
As you mention, goal achieved!
As for government cheese, I've said before that I'd favor ditching virtually all food stamp programs in favor of a simple system granting 8 Humanitarian Daily Rations per week to every citizen who cares to collect them.
Do you have a citation on being able to get them down below $1 each? Because I'm looking online and they seem closer to $7 each, and I doubt that even bulk purchasing will keep the total cost much lower once you factor in the cost of obtaining warehousing, down to the minor towns, and don't forget that you'd need said warehouses/distribution centers along at least the bus routes, so you can't just buy/lease the cheapest warehouse in town. You'll also need an agent at each distribution center to issue said rations, while ensuring that people only get their quota.
No, I don't think such a program would be as cheap as you think. Note, crawled wikipedia, where it says that a HDR is 'approximately' 1/5th the cost of a MRE, which is $87/12. Or about $1.50. I wouldn't be surprised in that case if the majority of the expense ends up being the cost of the distribution center and employee(s) to issue them.
I also don't think it's "fraud proof" for one moment. You're
giving away food. I can see plenty of fraud, a lot of it on the back end. Fake issuing out more packages than you actually distribute, sell the packages on ebay, or even overseas. People picking it up could use fake information to pick up more than their 'share', and again, sell it to those who can't be bothered to pick them up themselves, overseas, campers, etc...
Then you have the "prison loaf" problem - it's quite possible to have food that's so nasty that people will willingly starve rather than eat it.
It's not like I object all that much - it's just that we've found through hard experience that the close aid is to cash, the more effective it is, contrary to all expectations. Food stamps are actually cheaper.
For education, as has been said elsewhere, let's divert some/most of the college assistance toward trade schools and certification programs, with a preference based on market demand and demonstrated aptitude.
Trade schools are already generally quite affordable compared to college, and as long as they meet certain easy requirements are still eligible for various types of financial aid. It's the latter two that are more interesting as far as requirements go. Right now the government doesn't distinguish between a STEM degree where graduates are typically hired the year
before graduation, and other degrees where the applicant typically languishes for a year or more after graduation before finding a job - as a barista.
So I'm getting a sort of military ASVAB + limited choice vibe here: Here's the open career fields that your tests indicate that you're eligible for, and here's what we recommend.
But that's diverging from the idea of a UBI a bit...
The problem with things like UBI and the Earned Income Credit is that they are DIS-incentives for people to work. Yeah, I've got a great idea or I'd really like to make more, but if I do, then I lose some of my freebies.
Actually, the disincentives that you mention is one of the things that a UBI is
supposed to address. Because your "freebies" consist of, solely, $6k-10k in payments a year. Which
you do not lose if you get a job. So where's the disincentive to work more?
And I distinctly remember .gov cheese and butter growing up. Not because we qualified for it, but because my Dad owned a tavern. One day a guy came wanting a beer, but he had no money. He offered my dad a block of .gov cheese in exchange. My dad agreed to the trade.
Congratulations, you've discovered arbitrage!
I would bet that some people signed up for the free cheese just to turn it into a free beer.
No way in hell would I take your bet. Because I know darn well that many did.
This is the reason I favor a flat rate income tax, with a floor (to be determined), and with as few exemptions as possible (preferably, none).
Actually, it's not income taxes that are causing the problem. They're all adjusted so that when, for example, you go from the 10% tax rate to the 15%, it doesn't penalize you.
IE Your first $9,325(2017) is 10%
So if you earn $10k(adjusted), you pay:
$9325*.10=932.50
$675*.15 = 101.25
Totaling $1,033.75 (rounded up to the nearest whole dollar, $1034).
Rather than owing $1,500.
But many welfare benefits don't work that way. Earn $1 over $10k? There goes your $200/month food stamp benefit. Earn $1 over $20k? There goes your housing assistance... Every program has it's own phaseouts, assuming they're not cliffs, and because you could be on a number of benefit plans, overlapping phaseouts, even if a proper phaseout exists, can result in a cliff of its own. For the purposes of this, a "cliff" is encountered whenever earning $X amount more results in the loss of $X+Y benefits, with Y being a positive number.
