5 ms·

How do you reconcile the massive increase in spending this would cause?

Retric 10y ago
A flater tax rate would make up a large chunk of the difference. Basicly, at 50k you still get UBI, but it's offset by new taxes to leave your after tax income more or less the same. At 25k, you pay a lot more in taxes, but get a UBI for a net gain. At 0k you just get UBI, not food stamps ect. There would probably be a net cost increase, but as SS counts as regular income it's not going to be huge for most retires. At some UBI levels it's actually less than our current system. Programs to be removed, food stamps, HUD, welfare, unemployment insurance, Medical disability part of SS, and all the overhead associated with them. PS: The economic gain from social mobility would likely be huge as long as you don't adjust UBI for locations. Why be poor in NY when you can live well in a cheap part of Florida.
- wang_li 10y ago
  I thought the U stood for universal. If you take it back in new taxes, it's just a transfer program from productive to non-productive.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    It often stands for unconditional.
  - thaumasiotes 10y ago
    It's a transfer from productive to non-productive under all possible setups. How were you imagining it would be funded?
  - deathanatos 10y ago
    But I have to echo eanzenberg's comment, > How do you reconcile the massive increase in spending this would cause? If you're giving each person $13k/yr, does that not imply that you must then collect $13k/yr/person in taxes? Unless you're thinking it is all going to come from corporate taxes, then at least some of it must come from a citizen's taxes, no? (and if you do think this should come from corporations, do you not think that would have an effect on what gets passed to an employee? Why not pay a person $13k/yr less? — or more, since some people won't/can't work and we must cover them too?) I have no idea if UBI is a good idea or not … but if people want to do it, I expect to know how it will be paid for.
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      You can just print the money or otherwise conjure it into existence. For instance, by telling banks to change numbers in their databases. It probably isn't a good idea, but it's possible.
      - thaumasiotes 10y ago
        That's still a transfer from productive people to unproductive people. It just takes the specific form of hyperinflation. There is no difference between taxing everyone 20% of their holdings, and printing yourself 25% of everyone else's holdings. Either way you end up with a fifth of the wealth, and everyone's purchasing power goes down so yours can go up.
        maxerickson 10y ago
        Yeah, I get that. It still has economic impact. But you don't have to explicitly account for the payouts with receipts, which the post I replied to seemed to think was necessary.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - Retric 10y ago
    So is prison, social security, food stamps etc. considering we have a very large and expensive system it's worth looking into improvements.
- cheald 10y ago
  You're effectively describing a negative income tax, not UBI.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    There's a whole miasma of overlapping ideas. Lots of people propose a negative income tax as a way to implement a UBI.
  - Retric 10y ago
    I am not sure there is a difference as UBI's must be funded. At least in the US, oil states for example have a somewhat independent income stream.
1024core 10y ago
I keep asking the same question; and all I get, basically, is that the money will just appear from somewhere. What will happen to all the non-profits and government departments that are built around providing "services" to the poor, homeless, etc.? It's a huge industry, and it's not going down without a fight. In the meantime, you have added a few trillion dollars in annual spending to the budget.
- chimeracoder 10y ago
  > It's a huge industry, and it's not going down without a fight. It's not just that it's 'not going down without a fight' - these services are essential for people in need. These services provide them with more than just financial assistance. Given them money (and doing away with the services) only solves the problem if you assume that lack of money is the only problem. Which it's not - it's one aspect of the problem, but not the only issue for people in need.
- malka 10y ago
  UBI may not totally clear the homeless problem. Many of them are insane person without any care.
rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
Depends on the costs. If automation can push down food costs to minuscule levels (like a solar powered, robot-run, indoor greenhouse), you won't need to take as much in taxes. Granted, housing is often much more expensive relative to income - especially to the poor and working class - but that doesn't mean there can't be mass-produced, high density housing units. UBI really could work, but right now I don't think the costs of completely sustaining societies are low enough to keep the tax increases from chafing people enough to support a repeal
- eanzenberg 10y ago
  I think it will work and I think it will come. What I most disagree with is the timescale for the shift to occur :)

A flater tax rate would make up a large chunk of the difference. Basicly, at 50k you still get UBI, but it's offset by new taxes to leave your after tax income more or less the same. At 25k, you pay a lot more in taxes, but get a UBI for a net gain. At 0k you just get UBI, not food stamps ect. There would probably be a net cost increase, but as SS counts as regular income it's not going to be huge for most retires. At some UBI levels it's actually less than our current system. Programs to be removed, food stamps, HUD, welfare, unemployment insurance, Medical disability part of SS, and all the overhead associated with them. PS: The economic gain from social mobility would likely be huge as long as you don't adjust UBI for locations. Why be poor in NY when you can live well in a cheap part of Florida.

wang_li 10y ago
I thought the U stood for universal. If you take it back in new taxes, it's just a transfer program from productive to non-productive.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  It often stands for unconditional.
- thaumasiotes 10y ago
  It's a transfer from productive to non-productive under all possible setups. How were you imagining it would be funded?
- deathanatos 10y ago
  But I have to echo eanzenberg's comment, > How do you reconcile the massive increase in spending this would cause? If you're giving each person $13k/yr, does that not imply that you must then collect $13k/yr/person in taxes? Unless you're thinking it is all going to come from corporate taxes, then at least some of it must come from a citizen's taxes, no? (and if you do think this should come from corporations, do you not think that would have an effect on what gets passed to an employee? Why not pay a person $13k/yr less? — or more, since some people won't/can't work and we must cover them too?) I have no idea if UBI is a good idea or not … but if people want to do it, I expect to know how it will be paid for.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    You can just print the money or otherwise conjure it into existence. For instance, by telling banks to change numbers in their databases. It probably isn't a good idea, but it's possible.
    - thaumasiotes 10y ago
      That's still a transfer from productive people to unproductive people. It just takes the specific form of hyperinflation. There is no difference between taxing everyone 20% of their holdings, and printing yourself 25% of everyone else's holdings. Either way you end up with a fifth of the wealth, and everyone's purchasing power goes down so yours can go up.
      - maxerickson 10y ago
        Yeah, I get that. It still has economic impact. But you don't have to explicitly account for the payouts with receipts, which the post I replied to seemed to think was necessary.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- Retric 10y ago
  So is prison, social security, food stamps etc. considering we have a very large and expensive system it's worth looking into improvements.
cheald 10y ago
You're effectively describing a negative income tax, not UBI.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  There's a whole miasma of overlapping ideas. Lots of people propose a negative income tax as a way to implement a UBI.
- Retric 10y ago
  I am not sure there is a difference as UBI's must be funded. At least in the US, oil states for example have a somewhat independent income stream.

1024core 10y ago

I keep asking the same question; and all I get, basically, is that the money will just appear from somewhere. What will happen to all the non-profits and government departments that are built around providing "services" to the poor, homeless, etc.? It's a huge industry, and it's not going down without a fight. In the meantime, you have added a few trillion dollars in annual spending to the budget.

chimeracoder 10y ago
> It's a huge industry, and it's not going down without a fight. It's not just that it's 'not going down without a fight' - these services are essential for people in need. These services provide them with more than just financial assistance. Given them money (and doing away with the services) only solves the problem if you assume that lack of money is the only problem. Which it's not - it's one aspect of the problem, but not the only issue for people in need.
malka 10y ago
UBI may not totally clear the homeless problem. Many of them are insane person without any care.

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago

Depends on the costs. If automation can push down food costs to minuscule levels (like a solar powered, robot-run, indoor greenhouse), you won't need to take as much in taxes. Granted, housing is often much more expensive relative to income - especially to the poor and working class - but that doesn't mean there can't be mass-produced, high density housing units. UBI really could work, but right now I don't think the costs of completely sustaining societies are low enough to keep the tax increases from chafing people enough to support a repeal

eanzenberg 10y ago
I think it will work and I think it will come. What I most disagree with is the timescale for the shift to occur :)