4 ms·

125 million households in US: @ $1 / year each : Cost less than one of several individual machines in various portions of the federal inventory (mostly things

by patio11 11y ago

125 million households in US: @ $1 / year each : Cost less than one of several individual machines in various portions of the federal inventory (mostly things which kill people efficiently). @ $1,000 / year each : Exceeds combination of all federal spending on healthcare and education. @ $10,000 / year each: over 1/3rd of total federal tax receipts @ $30,000 / year each: consumes entire federal budget

JacobAldridge 11y ago
I note only 2 of those interviewed actually discussed the financial logistics at all. Matt Breuning throws out there that "10% GDP would be do-able", without really explaining where that $1.677 Trillion is coming from. Is it only existing programs? And even that figure only works out at approximately $5,000 per US Citizen per year. While worth investigating, I feel that's a far cry from what most people want when they talk about 'basic income'. [1] Numbers based on what Google spits out when you search for US GDP.
TTPrograms 11y ago
For comparison, current Federal welfare spending divided across all households is equivalent to ~$3000/year: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_welfare_spending_40.html http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_welfare_spending_40.h... I think the expectation is that income taxes would increase so that above a certain income level it becomes a net negative or break even at least - in that case it's pretty easy to get $1000 or $2000 / month equivalent for the bottom quarter of households or so. It's interesting that you describe $1000/year as "Exceeds combination of all federal spending on healthcare and education." given that it would be a savings over current welfare programs - doesn't seem like a very balanced comparison.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- matt_wulfeck 11y ago
  > 1) Salaries can decrease because employees are getting some income from the government. If you're making $100k now, you'd no longer need $100k from your employer, post-UBI, to have the same total income and quality of life. Who would actually be incentivized by this? "I can wakeup and do whatever I want today... OR I can roll into my crappy job with my crappy boss and be part of the economic machine and make a tiny bit more money each year..." If you're making $30k a year for nothing, why work at all for an extra $10 or $20k?
  - adrianN 11y ago
    When nobody has to work, the jobs that nobody wants to do inherently will have to pay a lot more than they do now. Very few people clean the gutters passionately, so gutter cleaner will have to pay top dollars if we still want that done.
forgotpwtomain 11y ago
Please include a source when you cite numbers that could be considered contentious?
- patio11 11y ago
  Source: US federal budget. And 4th grade math. But mostly the budget.
  - forgotpwtomain 11y ago
    > Source: US federal budget. And 4th grade math. But mostly the budget. Okay, here is the Wikipedia result (2014, in billions): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_States_federal_budget https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_States_federal_bud... Medicare: 519.027 Health: 450.795 With 125 million households: ((519.027 + 450.795) * 10^9)/ (125*10^6)) = $7758 Let me quote your original post: >> $1,000 / year each : Exceeds combination of all federal spending on healthcare and education. So how about actually providing some information about which sources you are looking at and how you are doing calculations, instead of pulling numbers out of your ass, and then offering some dismissive condescending response: > Source: US federal budget. And 4th grade math. But mostly the budget. When someone quite reasonably asks you to provide these - since your post as it stands really isn't contributing anything to the conversation..
pbreit 11y ago
So the question is, could you get rid of 1/3 of government spending?

by patio11 11y ago

JacobAldridge 11y ago

I note only 2 of those interviewed actually discussed the financial logistics at all. Matt Breuning throws out there that "10% GDP would be do-able", without really explaining where that $1.677 Trillion is coming from. Is it only existing programs? And even that figure only works out at approximately $5,000 per US Citizen per year. While worth investigating, I feel that's a far cry from what most people want when they talk about 'basic income'. [1] Numbers based on what Google spits out when you search for US GDP.

TTPrograms 11y ago

For comparison, current Federal welfare spending divided across all households is equivalent to ~$3000/year: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_welfare_spending_40.html http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_welfare_spending_40.h... I think the expectation is that income taxes would increase so that above a certain income level it becomes a net negative or break even at least - in that case it's pretty easy to get $1000 or $2000 / month equivalent for the bottom quarter of households or so. It's interesting that you describe $1000/year as "Exceeds combination of all federal spending on healthcare and education." given that it would be a savings over current welfare programs - doesn't seem like a very balanced comparison.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

matt_wulfeck 11y ago
> 1) Salaries can decrease because employees are getting some income from the government. If you're making $100k now, you'd no longer need $100k from your employer, post-UBI, to have the same total income and quality of life. Who would actually be incentivized by this? "I can wakeup and do whatever I want today... OR I can roll into my crappy job with my crappy boss and be part of the economic machine and make a tiny bit more money each year..." If you're making $30k a year for nothing, why work at all for an extra $10 or $20k?
- adrianN 11y ago
  When nobody has to work, the jobs that nobody wants to do inherently will have to pay a lot more than they do now. Very few people clean the gutters passionately, so gutter cleaner will have to pay top dollars if we still want that done.

forgotpwtomain 11y ago

Please include a source when you cite numbers that could be considered contentious?

patio11 11y ago
Source: US federal budget. And 4th grade math. But mostly the budget.
- forgotpwtomain 11y ago
  > Source: US federal budget. And 4th grade math. But mostly the budget. Okay, here is the Wikipedia result (2014, in billions): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_States_federal_budget https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_States_federal_bud... Medicare: 519.027 Health: 450.795 With 125 million households: ((519.027 + 450.795) * 10^9)/ (125*10^6)) = $7758 Let me quote your original post: >> $1,000 / year each : Exceeds combination of all federal spending on healthcare and education. So how about actually providing some information about which sources you are looking at and how you are doing calculations, instead of pulling numbers out of your ass, and then offering some dismissive condescending response: > Source: US federal budget. And 4th grade math. But mostly the budget. When someone quite reasonably asks you to provide these - since your post as it stands really isn't contributing anything to the conversation..

pbreit 11y ago

So the question is, could you get rid of 1/3 of government spending?