Friday, March 29, 2024

AdvertiseDonateSubmit
NewsSportsArtsOpinionThe QuadPhotoVideoIllustrationsCartoonsGraphicsThe StackPRIMEEnterpriseInteractivesPodcastsBruinwalkClassifieds

Assembly Bill 2712 proposes universal basic income to California residents

If passed, Assembly Bill 2712 would provide California residents over the age of 18 with a universal basic income of $1,000 a month, except as specified. The bill would be funded by a 10% tax on various goods and services in California. (Niveda Tennety/Assistant Photo editor)

By Lily Flick

March 5, 2020 12:17 a.m.

A California bill could provide residents with a universal basic income if passed.

Assembly Bill 2712, which was proposed by California State Assemblyman Evan Low on Feb. 20, would provide California residents over the age of 18 with a universal basic income of $1,000 per month, except as specified.

The idea of universal basic income gained popularity after former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang made the concept a cornerstone of his campaign.

The California proposal would be funded by a 10% tax on certain goods and services in the state ranging from raw materials to technologies, according to the bill.

Martin Gilens, a public policy professor at UCLA, said the bill could be beneficial for providing assistance to lower-income individuals by paying for basic necessities but added he has concerns about the bill’s universal applicability.

“While universal basic income could provide that kind of assistance, I don’t think it’s necessary to give money to the well-off, which, of course, the universal basic income does, in order to generate sufficient political support for anti-poverty efforts,” Gilens said.

The United States has always been a highly individualistic society in which there is a cultural resistance to the idea of government handouts, which could hinder support for the bill, Gilens added.

“(This cultural resistance) doesn’t mean citizens don’t see an important role for government and helping those who, for no fault of their own, are not able to support themselves, but it does mean that the notion of just kind of giving money to everybody, whether they need it or not, generates resistance,” he said.

Kenya Covington, a public policy lecturer, said the bill does not redistribute wealth in a way that helps the most financially vulnerable in society and may not be the best solution to income inequality in the U.S.

Additionally, there are restrictions to those that qualify for basic income. Individuals relying on social welfare programs like Medi-Cal, County Medical Services Program, CalFresh, CalWORKs or Unemployment Insurance cannot qualify for basic income, according to the bill.

Covington added that because of this eligibility clause in the bill, it may do more harm than good for low-income individuals, especially those who are in these social welfare programs that would exclude them from universal basic income.

“The structure of the program seems to be in conflict with the purpose of the program,” she said. “This would mean some of these other programs will need to be reduced or done away with altogether. I think that pits poor people against poor people.”

Covington added she thinks there should be a comprehensive policy analysis of the bill to understand how it would realistically function, particularly because there currently is not a great understanding of how the bill would intersect with other important social safety net programs.

Racquel Fox, a first-year environmental science student, also said she believes legislators should reexamine the bill, as the UBI would end up in the hands of individuals who do not need the money.

“(The bill) seems really not that effective to me because the people who need the income, they’re the ones who are on government welfare programs,” she said. “I feel like (the government) would just be giving people $1,000 who don’t need it as much.”

The 10% value-added tax on certain goods and services would exclude medicine and medical supplies, education materials and fees, and basic necessities like food and clothing, according to the bill.

Gilens said value-added taxes like these are regressive, meaning the tax would apply to a higher portion of low-income citizens than high-income citizens. This could cause an imbalance in the relationship between the money paid in taxes and the money received through the proposed income, he added.

Gilens said he does not believe the bill will be implemented on a national scale in the near future. Covington added she thinks it would need to undergo serious modifications.

Will Hollister, a first-year civil engineering student, also said he thinks the bill may not be ready to take effect now, but if the U.S. has a Democratic president in the future, it may be more likely.

“If a Democratic candidate wins in the future, I feel like that’s going to be one of their pillars of a campaign, policies that benefit the lower class and raise the standards of living,” he said. “Do I think it’s going to be in the form of $1,000? I’m not sure, but something along those lines I think will come up in the future.”

Share this story:FacebookTwitterRedditEmail
Lily Flick
COMMENTS
Featured Classifieds
More classifieds »
Related Posts