> Maybe that's a good example of how to get right-wing politicians to agree to some left-wing ideals: prove that it will save money and let them lower taxes.
I've certainly heard this argument from the (few) libertarian sources that are considering basic income. They are opposed to "entitlement" programs, but see a (theoretically) cheaper entitlement program as better than an expensive one. (Perhaps they also think that a flat-sum basic income is easier to lower or hold flat than a complex web of social programs. Or I may be being cynical)
OTOH, it can still be a hard sell to constituents. The US has known for at least a decade that spending more on IRS agents would earn more money than it would cost. No new rules, no new regulations, just enforcement of the rules we have. Seems like an easy decision to me, but few politicians, left or right, want to be caught saying we should have more tax enforcers.
I've certainly heard this argument from the (few) libertarian sources that are considering basic income. They are opposed to "entitlement" programs, but see a (theoretically) cheaper entitlement program as better than an expensive one. (Perhaps they also think that a flat-sum basic income is easier to lower or hold flat than a complex web of social programs. Or I may be being cynical)
OTOH, it can still be a hard sell to constituents. The US has known for at least a decade that spending more on IRS agents would earn more money than it would cost. No new rules, no new regulations, just enforcement of the rules we have. Seems like an easy decision to me, but few politicians, left or right, want to be caught saying we should have more tax enforcers.
Pity.