There has been growing discussion surrounding the United States’ social welfare policy and programs in recent years as the viability of the current policy comes into question with the ever growing federal deficit and projected social welfare demands depict a bleak outlook. One voice in the social welfare discussion in support of a shift from current policy to the implementation of a guaranteed income policy is the R.H. Brady scholar, Charles Murray. Murray outlines a unique guaranteed income policy in his 2008 piece, The Social Contract Revisited: Guaranteed Income as a Replacement for the Welfare State, to correct the current course of the United States’ social welfare policy. The concept of guaranteed income possesses promise to do just
…show more content…
While increasing the taxes is often seen as the Democrat answer to the probably, offering a clause that protects persons that would suffer under the $10,000 of benefits outlined by Murray may suffice to allow to be supported by less progressive Democrats to support the policy (Murray 2008). Although the savings boasted by Murray would be initially reduced, over time that projected savings would grow as individuals that would be protected begin to decrease, thus Republican support would not necessarily be drastically harmed. Additionally, depending on population demographics, Republicans that represent districts with large retired constituencies would likely find that this protection clause would be more politically favorable than Murray’s current …show more content…
Simply put, the earned income of an individual with children under the age of 21 should be allotted special considerations when calculating the amount of the $10,000 guaranteed income they should receive since their income is spread thinner to support more than themselves. Part of this proposal neglecting the number of dependents is the discouragement of premarital births (social issues surrounding this will be touched on later), but this neglects to account for births within a marriage as well. Since the guaranteed income is on an individual basis for citizens 21 years or older, married couples with children do not receive any adjustments for the additional dependents that draw on the income that is being taken into account. This means that parents that are supporting children under the age of 21 will be experiencing greater financial strain than individuals without children that earn equivalent
While increasing the taxes is often seen as the Democrat answer to the probably, offering a clause that protects persons that would suffer under the $10,000 of benefits outlined by Murray may suffice to allow to be supported by less progressive Democrats to support the policy (Murray 2008). Although the savings boasted by Murray would be initially reduced, over time that projected savings would grow as individuals that would be protected begin to decrease, thus Republican support would not necessarily be drastically harmed. Additionally, depending on population demographics, Republicans that represent districts with large retired constituencies would likely find that this protection clause would be more politically favorable than Murray’s current …show more content…
Simply put, the earned income of an individual with children under the age of 21 should be allotted special considerations when calculating the amount of the $10,000 guaranteed income they should receive since their income is spread thinner to support more than themselves. Part of this proposal neglecting the number of dependents is the discouragement of premarital births (social issues surrounding this will be touched on later), but this neglects to account for births within a marriage as well. Since the guaranteed income is on an individual basis for citizens 21 years or older, married couples with children do not receive any adjustments for the additional dependents that draw on the income that is being taken into account. This means that parents that are supporting children under the age of 21 will be experiencing greater financial strain than individuals without children that earn equivalent