4 ms·

$12,000/year per American adult who is not already on welfare or social security would cost about $2 Trillion per year. To put that into perspective, Social Sec

$12,000/year per American adult who is not already on welfare or social security would cost about $2 Trillion per year. To put that into perspective, Social Security cost $1.3 Trillion in 2013. The cost of all social welfare programs was $529 Billion. The GDP came in at around 17 Trillion. The US could afford it if we really wanted to. - Is it inflationary? Prima facia, it has to be. But then it would also increase the flow of money and put more people to work in places that the $1,000 gets spent. - Is it fair? If every American receives it, regardless of their wealth, then I don't see how it would be unfair. - Is it realistic politically? It seems that the US was pretty close to something along these lines in the 60's[0] and Obama finally got universal health care through. Perhaps it is realistic enough to at least put a true, modern pilot program in place and convince ourselves one way or the other. It really seems better than the alternative: Status quo for the homeless and the poor. A real value is that lower financial stress across the entire country would free parents to focus more on raising their kids. Many, many social problems subside when families do better. So my question is, how can we construct a valid experiment to convince ourselves one way or the other that this will benefit society overall, and provide enough value to actually do it? http://www.remappingdebate.org/article/guaranteed-income%E2%80%99s-moment-sun http://www.remappingdebate.org/article/guaranteed-income%E2%...

SomeCallMeTim 11y ago
>$12,000/year per American adult who is not already on welfare or social security... Is not what's being proposed by pretty much anyone. $12,000/year per American adult who isn't already earning $X/year is how I understand it. A negative income tax, effectively. Even if it's not administered that way (i.e., everyone gets a $1k check every month), then you raise taxes in such a way that every dollar earned means you earn more, but that by, say, $48k/year you're paying at least $12k/year in taxes.
- 11thEarlOfMar 11y ago
  The proposal is to pay all citizens the same amount. No means testing, no qualification except perhaps an age limit. Individuals are not the only tax payers, and the wealthy do pay far more than $12,000 per year already.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    Everyone does get the $12k, but you can effectively raise taxes to "cancel out" those $12k for the rich, maintaining the same effective tax rate for them.
    - SomeCallMeTim 11y ago
      My point is that you can adjust the tax code so that people over some threshold are paying $12k more than they used to, cancelling out the $12k of income. And counting people who are going to have their taxes raised by $12k in the overall cost is disingenuous. Below that threshold taxes will also likely go up, eating up some of the $12k there as well.
      - icebraining 11y ago
        Then we agree :)
ThePhysicist 11y ago
Also, the money used as basic income is not lost but will (mostly) stay in the economic system and stimulate growth. In most developed countries, introducing a universal basic income would require us to raise the tax rate to about 70 %, which does not sound ridiculously high given that it already is at 50 % in many countries (e.g. Germany). Also, the net effect on income would probably be positive for most people at the low end of the income distribution. People with higher incomes would lose money though. The most interesting question (to me at least) therefore is how this new tax progression would change the incentives for people at the high end of the income distribution. Theoretically it should lead people that earn a lot of money to value their free time more, which in turn would make them want to work less. Another positive effect would be the reduction of economic inequality through the higher redistribution of money from high to low incomes. In Europe there are some countries that are a good example for this. Sweden notably has a very steep tax progression for people with large incomes, such that some people reportedly even reach marginal tax rates > 100 % (e.g. Astrid Lindgren https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrid_Lindgren https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrid_Lindgren). As a result, Sweden has one of the smallest income inequalities among countries in the developed world (the Gini coefficient there is 25 % vs. 46 % for the USA). Higher taxation of large incomes reduces income inequality, which I think is (mostly) a good thing. The question is therefore not if it's possible (it probably is), but if people actually want it and think it's fair.

SomeCallMeTim 11y ago

>$12,000/year per American adult who is not already on welfare or social security... Is not what's being proposed by pretty much anyone. $12,000/year per American adult who isn't already earning $X/year is how I understand it. A negative income tax, effectively. Even if it's not administered that way (i.e., everyone gets a $1k check every month), then you raise taxes in such a way that every dollar earned means you earn more, but that by, say, $48k/year you're paying at least $12k/year in taxes.

11thEarlOfMar 11y ago
The proposal is to pay all citizens the same amount. No means testing, no qualification except perhaps an age limit. Individuals are not the only tax payers, and the wealthy do pay far more than $12,000 per year already.
- icebraining 11y ago
  Everyone does get the $12k, but you can effectively raise taxes to "cancel out" those $12k for the rich, maintaining the same effective tax rate for them.
  - SomeCallMeTim 11y ago
    My point is that you can adjust the tax code so that people over some threshold are paying $12k more than they used to, cancelling out the $12k of income. And counting people who are going to have their taxes raised by $12k in the overall cost is disingenuous. Below that threshold taxes will also likely go up, eating up some of the $12k there as well.
    - icebraining 11y ago
      Then we agree :)

ThePhysicist 11y ago

Also, the money used as basic income is not lost but will (mostly) stay in the economic system and stimulate growth. In most developed countries, introducing a universal basic income would require us to raise the tax rate to about 70 %, which does not sound ridiculously high given that it already is at 50 % in many countries (e.g. Germany). Also, the net effect on income would probably be positive for most people at the low end of the income distribution. People with higher incomes would lose money though. The most interesting question (to me at least) therefore is how this new tax progression would change the incentives for people at the high end of the income distribution. Theoretically it should lead people that earn a lot of money to value their free time more, which in turn would make them want to work less. Another positive effect would be the reduction of economic inequality through the higher redistribution of money from high to low incomes. In Europe there are some countries that are a good example for this. Sweden notably has a very steep tax progression for people with large incomes, such that some people reportedly even reach marginal tax rates > 100 % (e.g. Astrid Lindgren https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrid_Lindgren https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrid_Lindgren). As a result, Sweden has one of the smallest income inequalities among countries in the developed world (the Gini coefficient there is 25 % vs. 46 % for the USA). Higher taxation of large incomes reduces income inequality, which I think is (mostly) a good thing. The question is therefore not if it's possible (it probably is), but if people actually want it and think it's fair.