4 ms·

> The Swiss proposal of around $2600 a month, implemented in the US, would cost nearly $10 trillion a year which doesn't really seem feasible. That number soun

by corin_ 10y ago

> The Swiss proposal of around $2600 a month, implemented in the US, would cost nearly $10 trillion a year which doesn't really seem feasible. That number sounds higher than it would effectively be: 1) The population is ~320m, but ~65m of those are under the age of 16 (add on another 8m if you say under 18), who presumably don't need the same $2600/month right from when they are babies. That shaves of $2.8trillion 2) Some people currently on benefits will get to keep all of the $2,600, some people will break even receiving $2,600 and paying an extra $2,600 in tax, and at the richer end of the spectrum they will receive $2,600 and pay more than $2,600 back, to balance it out across society. Even before you start counting the extra money you get from taxing the rich with more than the free income they receive, if you draw a line at the median of society and say that everyone richer than that pays back the $2,600 they receive each month in tax (i.e. saying the richest half don't need this basic income) then that's $3.8trillion that is technically being given out but immediately bein taken back by the Government. (Hopefully they negotiate good bank fees! Obviously the benefit to this seemingly pointless giving out and taking back of money is not having to deal with the legwork of judging who deserves benefits.) So that's cut almost $10trillion down to ~$3.8trillion that's actually being given out. 3) Now take off current welfare costs. Wikipedia says "Total Social Security and Medicare expenditures in 2013 were $1.3 trillion" and I'm too lazy to find a figure that doesn't include Medicare. Let's imagine that it's split 50/50, we have $3.2trillion left to find. And this is when you start moving the line we drew down the middle of society and figuring out what % of the $2,600 different levels of society should get to keep or have to pay back in tax or have to pay extra in tax. If you think the rough amount of welfare spent on society currently is right then you can balance it so that less people get supported and less taxes are needed. If you think more people should receive more support and richer people should pay even higher taxes to cover that then it can be pushed in that direction. The simplest way to logically think "can it be balanced?" is to imagine that 100% of the population gets given $2,600 (or whatever amount) each month, and 100% gets taxed that exact same amount. Everyone is receiving that basic income, and (other than relatively small admin costs) the program is break even. Then you just play with numbers, always balancing both sides, to redistribute wealth from richer people to poorer people (which is already what the welfare system does).

xienze 10y ago
> we have $3.2trillion left to find. Bear in mind that the current US budget is $3.8 trillion dollars. So even in this best case scenario we have to nearly double our budget. There just isn't enough income to make this work.
rhino369 10y ago
You probably have to give children some sort of amount. Maybe even the full amount. The public isn't going to buy into a program that gives an abled bodied man who smokes pot and plays WoW all day the full share but give a single mom the 4 kids the same amount. There is also no way this would work if 50% of the country doesn't really get the income because you raise their taxes to take it back. Middle class taxes are a third rail in American politics. Even socialist Bernie Sanders won't raise their taxes. You'd be better off just raising the earned income tax credit.
- corin_ 10y ago
  You're right I forgot to add back in some amount for children. Somewhere between $400 and $1300 would be fair, so let's say a middle ground of $850/month which adds back $0.75trillion. As to raising taxes - if a UBI were ever to exist this would have to happen to the middle class, because the middle class (or most of them, might depend on how defined) do not need $2,600/month on top of their current situation and if they get this then certainly it wouldn't be affordable. It's not nearly as hard a sell as a normal tax raise though, you just explain that for X people under a certain wealth level the "new basic income tax" will be capped at the same amount they receive as basic income so that they don't lose any money in real terms.

by corin_ 10y ago

xienze 10y ago

> we have $3.2trillion left to find. Bear in mind that the current US budget is $3.8 trillion dollars. So even in this best case scenario we have to nearly double our budget. There just isn't enough income to make this work.

rhino369 10y ago

You probably have to give children some sort of amount. Maybe even the full amount. The public isn't going to buy into a program that gives an abled bodied man who smokes pot and plays WoW all day the full share but give a single mom the 4 kids the same amount. There is also no way this would work if 50% of the country doesn't really get the income because you raise their taxes to take it back. Middle class taxes are a third rail in American politics. Even socialist Bernie Sanders won't raise their taxes. You'd be better off just raising the earned income tax credit.

corin_ 10y ago
You're right I forgot to add back in some amount for children. Somewhere between $400 and $1300 would be fair, so let's say a middle ground of $850/month which adds back $0.75trillion. As to raising taxes - if a UBI were ever to exist this would have to happen to the middle class, because the middle class (or most of them, might depend on how defined) do not need $2,600/month on top of their current situation and if they get this then certainly it wouldn't be affordable. It's not nearly as hard a sell as a normal tax raise though, you just explain that for X people under a certain wealth level the "new basic income tax" will be capped at the same amount they receive as basic income so that they don't lose any money in real terms.