The JG uses progressive taxation to offset costs of the program.
Paul ‘18 [Mark Paul, PhD in economics from the University of Massachusetts Amherst, Postdoctoral Associate at the Samuel DuBois Cook Center on Social Equity at Duke University, and Assistant Professor of Economics and Environmental Studies at New College of Florida; 3/9/18, “The Federal Job Guarantee - A Policy to Achieve Permanent Full Employment”, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, https://www.cbpp.org/research/full-employment/the-federal-job-guarantee-a-policy-to-achieve-permanent-full-employment DOA 7/21/23] nmui
Although the initial financial cost estimated in table 1 may at first glance appear high, the initial costs will be offset by extensive cost savings through reduction of current social insurance programs, many of which would be substantively less necessary, return on investment within the program itself, moderation of economic downturns, expansion of economic capacity, and increases in tax revenues, particularly at the local and state levels. The latter entities frequently are bound by fiscal year constraints to balance their budgets that lead to tremendous cutbacks in the services they provide during economic downturns. The FJG substantially will reduce the need for the current levels of social insurance programs as individuals become ineligible for benefits such as SNAP after their earnings surpass the designated thresholds. In addition, progressive taxation, as outlined, could be enacted if politicians sought to offset the remainder of the FJG. Because the funding of the FJG will have Keynesian stimulus effects even as it directly provides full employment, we expect that increases in economic production will help reduce net costs further. Part of the initial cost of the FJG is due to the failure of the U.S. government to provide universal health care for its citizens. If the government were to provide all Americans with health-care coverage, program costs would be reduced considerably.