|
 “Restructuring SNAP as a Universal Basic Income (UBI) program or
modified UBI is a straightforward way to eliminate food
insecurity in United States. It’s expensive but it is not
difficult,” says Craig Gundersen, distinguished professor in the
Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics at U of I.
Gundersen authored the study, published in Food Policy.
While the existing SNAP program effectively reduces food
insecurity, it has some limitations. For some SNAP recipients,
the amount of aid they receive is insufficient. Some people who
are food insecure and eligible for SNAP do not participate. And
finally, more than half of those who are food insecure are not
eligible for SNAP, Gundersen explains.
Using data from the 2019 Current Population Survey, Gundersen
estimates the effects of expanding SNAP to become a UBI program
under three different scenarios.
“The first scenario is a standard UBI program, where everybody
in the United States gets SNAP at the maximum level,” Gundersen
explains. “Under the current program, your SNAP benefits go down
if your income increases. Under this proposal, the amount would
remain the same. If people wanted to work more and earn more
money, they wouldn’t lose their SNAP benefits.”
Under this scenario, food insecurity could decline by 88.8 %,
assuming the $730 billion cost would be funded through higher
taxes for top-earning households.
“With the current distribution of taxes in the
United States, the top 10% of incomes pay 70% of the taxes, and
the top 50% pay 97%. Even if you were to raise taxes on the
higher-income brackets to implement this program, it is unlikely
to influence the probability of these households becoming food
insecure,” he states.
The second scenario in Gundersen’s study would be a modified UBI
program where households with incomes up to four times the
poverty line; that is, approximately $100,000 for a family of
four, would receive SNAP benefits.
[to top of second column] |
Compared to the first scenario, the decline in food
insecurity would be almost the same – 88.5% – but at a much lower
cost of $408.5 billion.
Gundersen’s third scenario addresses the issue that current SNAP
benefits are not enough for some recipients to become food secure.
“Under this scenario, I consider what would happen if we increase
the maximum SNAP benefit by 25% and give it to all households with
incomes up to about $100,000 a year. In that case, there would be a
98.2% decline in food insecurity, and the cost would be $564.5
billion,” he notes.
“I believe the third scenario is the best one,” Gundersen says.
“While the second one is also good, it would not be adequate for
some of the most vulnerable groups; that is, SNAP recipients who
need more assistance than they currently receive. The third scenario
would ensure that they get what they need to become food secure.”
Gundersen acknowledges that his proposals are costly, but so are
other government programs.
“Essentially, I propose a way of eliminating food insecurity in
United States, and the cost of this would be about a half trillion
dollars per year. That seems like a lot, but to put it in context,
the cost of the COVID-19 pandemic stimulus packages from the Trump
administration and the Biden administration were roughly $6
trillion. It’s a lot of money. But if we want to be serious about
alleviating food insecurity, this is a simple, straightforward way
to do it,” he concludes.
[Source: Craig Gundersen,
Writer: Marianne Stein]
 |
