Money for Nothing: Switzerland Eyes a Basic Income Guarantee

BJH215 Uncle Sam. Image shot 2010. Exact date unknown.
Occupy Wall Street may be on to something.

Corporate profit margins are hitting record highs, while the little guy suffers, earning paychecks so small that one Walmart (WMT) store recently felt compelled to solicit food donations on behalf of its own employees.

Clearly, something is not quite right with how our economy is working, but what's the solution?

Last month, we wrote about Allan Sheahen, author of a book on the Basic Income Guarantee (BIG) -- a plan to have the federal government guarantee a "basic income" to every adult U.S. citizen, ensuring that every one of them has at least enough money to live on -- by handing it out, in cash, to every citizen, no questions asked. Such a law, proponents argue, would eliminate poverty at the stroke of a pen. It would simplify America's social safety net, eliminating housing assistance programs, social security, food stamps, and dozens of other high-cost social programs -- replacing them with a single blanket guarantee that everyone gets enough money to pay for their most basic needs.

Sound too good to be true? It may soon happen -- in Switzerland.

As Reuters reports, last month the Swiss government received a petition signed by more than 100,000 citizens, calling for a nationwide referendum to establish a basic income guarantee. Specifically, the proposal would pay every adult citizen $2,800 per month, or about 42 percent of the average per capita income in Switzerland, no strings attached. That's even more generous than what BIG advocates here suggest. A U.S. BIG equivalent in generosity would work out to about $1,750 per month.

Government Support and the Work Ethic

Critics naturally warn that giving people money regardless of whether they work or not may result in -- spoiler alert! -- people choosing not to work. That's one risk the Swiss will have to decide whether they want to take. But it may not be a huge risk they're taking. Studies suggest that most people like to do something useful with their lives, and will continue to work even if they don't necessarily need to.

Trial runs of BIG-like programs, conducted here in the U.S. in the 1960s and 1970s, showed a drop of only 1 percent in hours worked in at least one sample population -- despite workers having that baseline income guaranteed whether they worked or not.

In general, working mothers were the group found most likely (upwards of 7 percent) to cut back on work after receiving a BIG grant. But even there, studies showed that most of the women spending less time at the office did so not because they were lazy, but because they wanted to work somewhere else -- at home, raising their kids.

Other objections to the program range from worries that it would be unaffordable (Sheahen's book lays out the math proving that BIG could be paid for with a 35 percent flat tax, plus replacing the current system of wasteful, expensive-to-oversee social programs with a blanket income grant) to fears that it would be ineffective (because, critics assert, poor folk are incapable of managing their money, and will blow any grant money they receive on drugs, alcohol, and lottery tickets).

What's really needed, therefore, is a modern-day experiment to see how BIG might work in practice.

What Really Happens When You Give Poor Households Money

And as it turns out, we actually have some of that data.

Just a few weeks back, The Economist reported on a charity project called "Give Directly," which is funded in part by corporate do-gooder donors Google (GOOG) and Facebook (FB).

Give Directly targets poor households in Kenya, giving select recipients $1,000 each to spend as they like -- then tracks what happens next. The aim is to see whether poor households given a sum of money spend it wisely, or waste it immediately. (Or as The Economist puts it, whether the money "pulls people out of poverty," or whether they take the money and "blow it on booze and brothels.")

In one particular success story, a poor household in Kenya was given $1,000, then left alone to see how the money was spent. Half -- $500 -- was immediately invested in home improvements such as the installation of a new metal roof -- an investment that pays for itself in less than six-and-a-half years by eliminating the need to spend $80 a year replacing a thatch roof. The remaining $500 went into an even better investment: creating two businesses, one selling lumber, a second raising chickens and eggs for resale.

The two businesses now generate profits of more than $1,000 annually -- more than the value of the initial Give Directly grant.

Caveats and Provisos Abound

As The Economist reports, not all Give Directly grants were such runaway success stories, and there's some data to suggest that making grants conditional on the recipient following certain rules (e.g., ensuring kids go to school, getting regular medical care) may generate better results than are seen from unconditional grants. But on average, Kenyan households receiving no-strings-attached grants from Give Directly saw their annual incomes rise by 25 percent, childhood malnutrition rates fall more than 33 percent, and livestock holdings (income-producing assets, in U.S. terms) increase by 50 percent.

Similar experiments in Uganda, Vietnam, and other developing nations have generated statistics ranging from 20-percentage-point declines in poverty to 50 percent gains in income as recipients used their grant money to invest in tools, livestock, and education, and have been characterized as "wildly successful."

Looking around at the state of the U.S. economy today, you have to wonder if we could use a little bit of that wild success here, as well. Maybe, just maybe, if it works as well in Switzerland as it did in Kenya, the U.S. will decide to follow their lead.

Motley Fool contributor Rich Smith has no position in any stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool recommends and owns shares of Facebook and Google.

Increase your money and finance knowledge from home

What is Inflation?

Why do prices go up?

View Course »

Managing your Portfolio

Keeping your portfolio and financial life fit!

View Course »

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum


Filter by:
Steve Godenich

A clear, but oversimplified design CASE for basic income is shown in:

The Unconditional Basic Income Economy - part 1 of 2

December 04 2013 at 12:30 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Steve Godenich

With a Flat 35% tax on total personal income(TPI), a figure in the neighborhood of $2100/mo gross or $1400mo net may be derived. Also, another current book which may be appealing to mainstream economist debate is :

Basic Income and the Free Market: Austrian Economics and the Potential for Efficient Redistribution (Exploring the Basic Income Guarantee) - Guinevere Liberty Nell - 8/2013 -

There are potential benefits to both labour and capital with tradeoffs to government bureaucracy and cartels. Proponents of bureaucracy, red tape and cartels may balk.

December 02 2013 at 10:09 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

Money for nothing, but are the chicks for free?

November 30 2013 at 12:49 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

Vote democrat , let the greedy ones know it is not acceptable to enslave 90+ % of the people just so they can hoard money.& no1ryb if you look at you you may see how much you are really subsidised , but will not admit it .

November 30 2013 at 4:39 AM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply

Correction: [ It ] won't work...etc.

November 30 2013 at 1:57 AM Report abuse -1 rate up rate down Reply

I won't work in today's political climate. the Tea Party would find something objectionable about it and block it, since it doesn't favor big business nor the rich elite. It'll be D.O.A.!

November 30 2013 at 1:56 AM Report abuse -1 rate up rate down Reply

BTW 47% of this country supports 53% as it is. At a million per minute I hope the well doesn't run dry, as joblessness is an attraction instead of handicap. Thank you B. Hussein Obama.

November 30 2013 at 1:52 AM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply

Isn't this a low form of of hopeless addiction ? A reliance on " someone else " to keep shoes on babys feet ? . An attack, on the axium " Necessity is the mother invention ? " I see huge bellies, empty beer cans and cigarette butts in every household, mindlessly glued to a tv with
a remote control in hand. You know I liked life a lot better when plastic bags had no disclaimer,
when raisen bread had icing, and anyone with the drive and desire could step up and out.

November 30 2013 at 1:47 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Bob Shull.

All money comes through government, circles around through various citizens hands and returns right back to government. Get used to it my friends and neighbors. Money will not go with you to heaven or hell.

November 30 2013 at 1:02 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

Perhaps Switzerland is planning to fund this with the money they refused to return to Holocaust survivors?

November 30 2013 at 12:41 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply