Guaranteed Progressive Income

Applied Satisologie: Guaranteed Progressive Income is a boon when done correctly.

G.P.I.

In this chart the red steps indicate how much government assistance one gets in the GPI scheme based on the income on the left. These numbers are what I would consider bare survivability numbers in the US in 2020. It can be done quite economically, even if the award amount were increased substantially.

So let’s say you earn $0 this year, the assistance award would be $12,000. If you earned $22,000 this year, the assistance would be ( $24k-$22k ) / 2 or $1k. Bringing you up to $23k. Once you hit the “climb-out bound,” or $24k in this simple example, the assistance is no longer necessary.

Benefits:

1. Actually closes the income inequality gap by shrinking the gap rather than vertically shifting all equally (as suggested by “universal basic income”).

2. Can easily be worked into existing tax infrastructure.

3. We have seen this formula work in stimulus payments, namely Corona Public Relief Stimulus #1. Yes, a house full of congresspeople came to the same conclusion. Their “climb-out bound” was $99,000.

“Looks familiar,” you might be thinking. Yeah, it operates much like Milton Friedman’s NIT (negative income tax).

But what’s wrong with Universal Basic Income that you would do this instead?

1. Rapid currency devaluation due to increased [currency] supply with no commensurate increase in consumables or experience-ables.

2. Giving all an equal amount does not close the income-inequality gap ever, it just keeps income-inequality distanced in parallel steps.

3. Putting water on all the houses when only some are burning and water is precious is not optimal satisologie. Yeah, Andrew Yang get sincere, man!

This article marks the first in a series called Applied Satisologie where we tackle longstanding social, economic, and cultural challenges by seeking an optimal result for all parties that respects and honors the creative inertia.