Wisconsin legislators are advancing Assembly Bill 165, a proposal that would prohibit local governments from using taxpayer dollars to fund guaranteed income programs—initiatives that provide recurring, no-strings-attached cash payments to individuals. The bill defines these programs as those that offer unearned income with no work or training requirements. Programs funded through private sources would still be permitted.
The bill’s sponsors argue that publicly funded guaranteed income undermines the work ethic, discourages employment, and expands government dependency. “These programs do nothing to lift people out of poverty permanently,” supporters claim, citing a study of 3,000 participants in Illinois and Texas that found recipients of guaranteed income worked less and had lower household earnings than those not receiving the payments. They also argue that such programs layer cash assistance on top of existing benefits like Medicaid, FoodShare, and subsidized child care—burdens already heavily carried by Wisconsin taxpayers.
Several lawmakers referenced Madison’s privately funded Forward Fund and Milwaukee’s 2024 Bridge Project pilot, which provides $500 monthly to expectant mothers in low-income ZIP codes. While these were small-scale and, in some cases, privately financed, critics of public funding caution that they set the stage for expanded taxpayer-supported models. Milwaukee’s Common Council approved public funds for its program, despite opposition from the city’s mayor, who warned that unconditional transfers are financially unsustainable.
Supporters of AB 165 argue that now is the time to act. With Wisconsin’s historically low unemployment and employers offering sign-on bonuses to fill open positions, they say it’s irresponsible to fund initiatives that may reduce workforce participation. “This bill protects taxpayers and ensures state resources are directed toward self-reliance, not dependency,” said Sen. Steve Nass.
Opponents of the bill, including Democratic legislators and social welfare advocates, say it amounts to state overreach. They argue that local governments should retain the flexibility to pilot new anti-poverty approaches and tailor programs to community needs. Critics also dispute claims that guaranteed income discourages work, noting that pilot programs nationwide have helped stabilize households and reduce financial stress.
AB 165 passed the Assembly Committee on Public Benefit Reform and awaits further legislative action. Governor Tony Evers, who previously vetoed similar legislation, may again play a decisive role in determining the bill’s fate.
