Massachusetts is among the richest states in the world’s richest country. Yet far too many residents struggle to make ends meet. This is partly a result of the high and rising cost of living in our region. But it is also an income problem.
Far too many low- and moderate-income households, especially households of color, are stretched thin by low wages and soaring costs for housing, child care, health care, and transportation. And not everyone is in the paid labor force; many people work little or not at all, for reasons like disability, old age, education, or family caregiving responsibilities. The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated these disparities, but it also gave rise to a policy experiment with deep roots in American history: guaranteed income (GI), which provides unrestricted and unconditional recurring cash payments to individuals or families. While related to the idea of universal basic income (UBI), GI is typically targeted to those most in need rather than being provided to everyone.
GI is not a new concept. Different iterations have deep roots in American policy debates, championed by civil rights and economic justice leaders like Johnnie Tillmon, Ruby Duncan, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who envisioned direct cash as a way to support caregiving, reduce poverty, and advance equality and economic justice. It has also drawn interest from the other side of the political spectrum, with President Richard Nixon, for instance, proposing in the 1970s a form of GI called the Family Assistance Plan. Libertarian-leaning economists like Milton Friedman also championed a related concept of the negative income tax as a simpler, more efficient alternative to complex welfare programs.
Over the past decade, GI has built on these historic ideas and moved from theory to practice. Interest gathered steam during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the federal government implementing two large-scale GI-style programs: Economic Impact Payments (or “stimulus checks”) and the expanded Child Tax Credit, which provided monthly payments to roughly 90 percent of families with children. These policies were rolled out quickly, enjoying some bipartisan support, and demonstrated the practical benefits of getting flexible cash into people’s hands.
Building on that momentum, state and local governments across the country began piloting GI programs, often using federal relief dollars made available through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act and the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). Since 2020, 24 GI programs have launched in communities across the Commonwealth. Massachusetts does not yet have a permanent GI program at the state level, but policymakers have taken steps in that direction. The state has expanded cash-based policies like the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which supports low-income workers, and implemented a Child and Family Tax Credit (CFTC), which provides universal support to families with children under age 13 and some older dependents. More recently, state lawmakers have introduced legislation for state-led GI pilots1 and baby bonds,2 an asset-building savings account created by the government for an individual at birth, to help close the racial wealth gap and promote long-term economic opportunity.
This report takes stock of what we’ve learned so far from this growing GI ecosystem and places that learning in the context of the broader national research base.