• A guaranteed-basic-income program in Austin gave people $1,000 a month for a year.
  • Most of the participants spent the no-strings-attached cash on housing, a study found.
  • Participants who said they could afford a balanced meal also increased by 17%.

A guaranteed-basic-income plan in one of Texas’ largest cities reduced rates of housing insecurity. But some Texas lawmakers are not happy.

Austin was the first city in Texas to launch a tax-payer-funded guaranteed-income program when the Austin Guaranteed Income Pilot kicked off in May 2022. The program served 135 low-income families, each receiving $1,000 monthly. Funding for 85 families came from the City of Austin, while philanthropic donations funded the other 50.

The program was billed as a means to boost people out of poverty and help them afford housing. “We know that if we trust people to make the right decisions for themselves and their families, it leads to better outcomes,” the city says on its website. “It leads to better jobs, increased savings, food security, housing security.”

While the program ended in August 2023, a new study from the Urban Institute, a Washington, DC, think tank, found that the city’s program did, in fact, help its participants pay for housing and food. On average, program participants reported spending more than half of the cash they received on housing, the report said.

  • snekerpimp@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    126
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    10 months ago

    Wouldn’t this lead you to postulate that the housing crisis in America is real and out of control when the money you give them goes right into housing?

    Is this how they intend to fleece America? Give people a guaranteed income paid for by their tax dollars, so it can go right into government subsidized housing, owned and run by a shadow company that the politicians and their buddies just happen to be on the board of?

    • Scubus
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      73
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Honestly if it means guaranteed housing(which it doesn’t) then I’d be down with that. It’s better than getting fleeced with no house.

        • Scubus
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          58
          ·
          10 months ago

          No, but I have to imagine it’s superior to a cardboard box or a bridge

          • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            28
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            It’s fine, but it depends on upkeep. Just like any other housing. It was a good idea, but needs funding (like roads, bridges, etc.).

            Plenty of people live in unmaintained apartments owned by slumlords, but nobody’s saying “look at how bad private housing is!” Few people (dummies) say “look how bad public roads are!” and advocate private toll roads and bridges.

            • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              We have all the money we need to fund such projects, provided we stop running eight wars at once abroad and then paying for other countries’ wars too.

              • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                13
                ·
                10 months ago

                You are thinking too small and distracting from the main point here. From a strictly economic standpoint, we have enough money to do all these things.

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              Being bad in one place doesn’t mean it’s bad everywhere. I’m sorry you had a bad experience but elsewhere the government functions as a renter of last resort with properties all over the place. What’s bad is the high rise projects that were made to corral poor minorities and cut them off from the rest of society.

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      10 months ago

      Congratulations, you managed to make people having a place to live sound not just bad, but sinister.

    • Justin@lemmy.jlh.name
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      “Kapitalet höjer hyrorna, och Staten bostadsbidragen.”

      The Swedes were calling out this game back in 1972.

      Of course, our solution was to just stop subsidizing housing altogether and screw over poor people.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      Whoa there, we already know the future of subsidized housing is corporate towns. Why give it to the people when you can just give it to their rich boss instead?

    • HubertManne@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      I feel guaranteed income amount should be based on government contracted rates for places providing something akin to a single occupancy dorm room. so food and shelter in a basic way is covered.

    • hglman@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      10 months ago

      Who’s tax dollars, it has to be a wealth transfer or the scheme won’t work.

      • Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        Texas doesn’t have an income tax but it has incredibly high property taxes. In a very real way, this program is literally funded by taxing the super wealthy, including foreign investors. If you are a foreign national that owns a condo in one of the downtown highrises, you still pay property taxes.

        Source: Former Austinite.