3 ms·

> I really like the simplicity and efficiency of Guaranteed Income. Social welfare is one of the 'costs of doing business' in a modern civilization. Cut the cra

> I really like the simplicity and efficiency of Guaranteed Income. Social welfare is one of the 'costs of doing business' in a modern civilization. Cut the crap and just give everyone basic resources without reservations. The problem is it simply is not possible or feasible. https://aspe.hhs.gov/2015-poverty-guidelines https://aspe.hhs.gov/2015-poverty-guidelines Poverty line is $11,770. I'm pretty sure any reasonable person doesn't want to live on that amount of money because it would suck! So how much does it cost to, say, give everyone $10k/year and thereby guaranteeing everyone who can work would want to? http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html 23.1% of the population is under 18. So .769 is 18+. 318,857,056 is the total population of the US. (318,857,056.769$11700) = ~2.9 trillion US$ https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/ https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-bud... We have about $3.8 trillion in federal revenue. $985.74 is the cost of Medicare. $985.74 billion + $2.9 trillion = ~$3.9 trillion This leaves a $0 budget for literally anything else. To be reasonable, we'd probably need to raise another ~$1 trillion in taxes to sustain something vaguely resembling current government functions [remember, the existing expenditure is already over $3.8 trillion]. Even then, it'd be really iffy.

danieltillett 11y ago
You would just need to increase the tax rates to pay for it. The us economy is ~$18 trillion so even if you need to raise an extra $2.9 trillion it would be possible. Of course I think it has zero chance of ever being implemented because of politics.
- fweespeech 11y ago
  You can't raise 3 trillion in taxes on the US economy to support that kind of program. People would see their taxes double and they'd flip the fuck out.
  - danieltillett 11y ago
    Most people would not see any net increase in taxes, but the wealthy would certainly see a massive rise - hence why I suggested it is impossible politically.
    - fweespeech 11y ago
      The wealthy don't have a 3 trillion income for you to tax. http://fortune.com/2014/10/31/inequality-wealth-income-us/ http://fortune.com/2014/10/31/inequality-wealth-income-us/ > There is no dispute that income inequality has been on the rise in the United States for the past four decades. The share of total income earned by the top 1 percent of families was less than 10 percent in the late 1970s but now exceeds 20 percent as of the end of 2012. https://bber.unm.edu/econ/us-tpi.htm https://bber.unm.edu/econ/us-tpi.htm Total household income is only ~13 trillion. So even if you took 100% of their income, the numbers wouldn't work. Pretty much the only way to make that work is to tax people down to the $75,000 or so level.
      - danieltillett 11y ago
        Sure you would have to tax everyone, but once you discount out the actual base income (pay $10,000 or less in tax, get $10,000 in base income) then most people would be ahead.
        fweespeech 11y ago
        So now its we have to tax everyone? Okay. You've basically gotta take half of the household income in the country to make your plan work. That isn't happening.

danieltillett 11y ago

You would just need to increase the tax rates to pay for it. The us economy is ~$18 trillion so even if you need to raise an extra $2.9 trillion it would be possible. Of course I think it has zero chance of ever being implemented because of politics.

fweespeech 11y ago
You can't raise 3 trillion in taxes on the US economy to support that kind of program. People would see their taxes double and they'd flip the fuck out.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  Most people would not see any net increase in taxes, but the wealthy would certainly see a massive rise - hence why I suggested it is impossible politically.
  - fweespeech 11y ago
    The wealthy don't have a 3 trillion income for you to tax. http://fortune.com/2014/10/31/inequality-wealth-income-us/ http://fortune.com/2014/10/31/inequality-wealth-income-us/ > There is no dispute that income inequality has been on the rise in the United States for the past four decades. The share of total income earned by the top 1 percent of families was less than 10 percent in the late 1970s but now exceeds 20 percent as of the end of 2012. https://bber.unm.edu/econ/us-tpi.htm https://bber.unm.edu/econ/us-tpi.htm Total household income is only ~13 trillion. So even if you took 100% of their income, the numbers wouldn't work. Pretty much the only way to make that work is to tax people down to the $75,000 or so level.
    - danieltillett 11y ago
      Sure you would have to tax everyone, but once you discount out the actual base income (pay $10,000 or less in tax, get $10,000 in base income) then most people would be ahead.
      - fweespeech 11y ago
        So now its we have to tax everyone? Okay. You've basically gotta take half of the household income in the country to make your plan work. That isn't happening.