A Guaranteed Minimum Income (GMI) for the bottom 50% of earners ensures that no one is left to struggle needlessly in a system that produces immense wealth but distributes it poorly.

Despite decades of economic growth, wages have stagnated, the cost of living has soared, and millions of people find themselves one medical bill, one rent increase, or one layoff away from disaster. The United States, for all its wealth and productivity, has a deeply dysfunctional economy when it comes to ensuring basic financial security. While stock markets rise and corporate profits break records, half of Americans cannot cover a $500 emergency without going into debt.

The wealthiest Americans accumulate fortunes so vast they cannot be spent in a hundred lifetimes, while millions work full-time jobs that still leave them in poverty. The supposed social safety net is a tangled mess of means-tested programs that are often difficult to access, riddled with bureaucratic hurdles, and laced with stigma. The government already spends billions on welfare programs, but many of them fail to deliver dignity or stability.

Decades of studies have shown that cash transfers are one of the most effective ways to reduce poverty. Unlike food stamps, rent vouchers, or other restrictive welfare programs, cash allows people to make their own financial decisions, treating them as capable adults rather than subjects of government paternalism. Experiments in countries like Finland, Kenya, and Canada have shown that people use basic income to pay rent, cover medical expenses, pursue education, and start small businesses. The myth that people will stop working if they receive a modest income has been repeatedly disproven; in fact, financial security often allows people to find better jobs, retrain for new industries, or leave abusive workplaces.

Opponents of GMI argue that it is too expensive, but the reality is that poverty is already staggeringly expensive. The costs of homelessness, emergency medical care, crime, and lost productivity due to financial stress are enormous burdens on both the economy and society. Poverty drains public resources while reducing economic output. A GMI is an economically sound investment. Ensuring that people have money to cover their basic needs reduces reliance on expensive emergency services, cuts crime rates, and improves overall outcomes.

A GMI simplifies this by cutting through the red tape and ensuring that anyone in the bottom 50% of earners receives a modest but reliable foundation—$1,200 a month, no conditions attached. To target the bottom 50% of earners for GMI, the current cutoff would be an annual household income of $80,610.

At an annual cost of $1.5 trillion, funding GMI requires shifting economic priorities rather than creating an unsustainable burden. The federal government already spends comparable amounts on tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy, defense contracts that produce weapons we will never use, and subsidies for industries that pollute the environment while returning little value to society. Closing tax loopholes, imposing a modest wealth tax, and restructuring corporate taxation can generate much of the required revenue without raising taxes on the majority of Americans. The ultra-rich, who currently exploit offshore tax havens and financial engineering to avoid paying their fair share, would finally contribute proportionally to the society that enables their wealth accumulation. A small financial transaction tax on Wall Street—even a fraction of a percent—would generate hundreds of billions of dollars annually while discouraging speculative trading that contributes nothing to the real economy.

The bottom 50% of earners in the U.S. include roughly 83 million adults. Providing each of them with $14,400 annually results in a total cost of about $1.195 trillion per year. Some of this cost would be offset by reduced reliance on existing welfare programs, since a GMI would replace or supplement certain aid programs like direct cash assistance and unemployment benefits. Taking these offsets into account, a reasonable estimate for the net cost of the program would be around $1 trillion to $1.1 trillion per year. To fund this initiative without adding to the national debt, we propose three key revenue sources:

1. A Wealth Tax on Ultra-Rich Estates
A 2% annual tax on estates worth over $50 million would generates significant revenue. The top 0.1% of Americans hold an estimated $20 trillion in wealth, meaning this tax alone could raise around $400 billion per year.

2. A Progressive Tax Increase on High Earners
The U.S. has seen declining tax rates for the wealthiest individuals in recent decades. Raising marginal tax rates on incomes over $1 million to 45% and over $10 million to 60% would generate an additional $400 billion to $450 billion annually.

3. Financial Transactions Tax on Stock Purchases
Implementing a 0.1% tax on stock trades (just 10 cents for every $100 traded) would raise approximately $100 billion per year. While small for individual investors, this tax would curb excessive speculation in high-frequency trading and ensure Wall Street contributes fairly to public funding.

Additionally, GMI would replace or reduce the need for many inefficient welfare programs. Current welfare benefits are fragmented across multiple agencies, creating an administrative nightmare. By consolidating these into a single direct cash payment, overhead costs would drop significantly. While certain specialized programs such as disability assistance would remain necessary, many existing social programs that require means-testing and endless paperwork could be phased out, further reducing costs. Instead of forcing people to navigate a maze of bureaucracy to prove they are poor enough to deserve help, GMI provides assistance automatically, cutting government waste and reducing stigma.

There is a moral case for GMI. No one in a wealthy nation should have to decide between paying rent and buying groceries. No child should go to school hungry, no worker should hold multiple jobs just to stay afloat, and no elderly person should spend their final years in financial desperation. The constant stress of economic insecurity takes a toll on mental and physical health, weakening the entire fabric of society. Financial precarity fuels depression, anxiety, and substance abuse. A stable income floor gives people breathing room to plan for the future rather than living paycheck to paycheck in survival mode.

A GMI would also address the changing nature of work. Automation and artificial intelligence are rapidly reshaping the economy, eliminating stable middle-class jobs while creating a precarious gig economy with fewer benefits and protections. Many industries are moving toward temporary and contract-based work rather than secure, full-time employment. While innovation and technological progress are inevitable, economic policies must evolve to ensure that these changes do not leave millions of people behind. A GMI provides resilience in an economy where traditional job security is increasingly rare.

GMI is not a radical idea; it is a necessary adaptation to the realities of the modern economy. It aligns with the principle that no one should be left behind in a system that produces vast wealth. It ensures that prosperity is shared rather than hoarded by a tiny elite, and it recognizes that economic stability leads to a healthier, more productive society. It is time to replace outdated welfare systems with a simple, dignified, and effective solution.

THEREFORE, under Folklaw:

A modest Guaranteed Minimum Income shall be provided to the bottom 50% of income earners in the United States. This policy shall be funded through progressive taxation, the closing of corporate tax loopholes, a wealth tax on the ultra-rich, and a financial transaction tax on stock purchases.

No recipient of GMI shall be penalized for working or earning additional income. This policy is designed to supplement work, not replace it, ensuring that people have the freedom to pursue careers, education, caregiving, or entrepreneurship without constant financial fear.

Bureaucratic means-tested welfare programs that create unnecessary barriers to aid shall be phased out in favor of direct cash assistance, reducing waste and ensuring that help reaches those who need it most.