4 ms·

Why not discontinue basic income after someone makes, say, $50K per year? That would cut the cost of it. Actually it should taper off, if you make 48K and get

Why not discontinue basic income after someone makes, say, $50K per year? That would cut the cost of it. Actually it should taper off, if you make 48K and get a raise to 50K, you just got screwed.

Pamar 10y ago
Because then you have two types of citizens: those that are considered "parasites" because live entirely off the Basic Income, and those that not get it anymore. (The fundamental idea behind B.I. is that anyone should get it, the poorest guy in the neighborhood should get exactly as much as Bill Gates - there is some debate about convicts and/or minors, even if in the latter case most seem to agree that the money goes to the parents/caregivers).
- JustSomeNobody 10y ago
  Why would Bill Gates need it? Ask him and he'd probably say, "keep it."
  - mason240 10y ago
    Why create a bureaucracy to monitor the incomes of of 330 million, and then force them to prove they are poor enough for a check just to exclude Bill Gates? Gates is paying at least 8 figures in Federal taxes a year, just send him a check like everyone else. How many people are you going to hire, and how much of everyone's time are you going to waste just to stop Gates from getting a UBI payment out of spite?
  - Pamar 10y ago
    That's the point: he gets it even if he does not need it and if it is a negligible amount of his own personal income/fortune. Universal means just that: everyone gets it. No matter if they need it or not. Maybe you could read up something about the Alaska Fund Dividend to get an idea of how this is supposed to work in practice (the AFD is of course limited to Alaska, and way lower than the suggested 12000 USD target, but still gives an idea of how it is regulated and paid out in practice).
    - gremlinsinc 10y ago
      Agreed, the benefit also being == bureaucracy = jobs = costs. AI printing/cutting/mailing checks to everyone in America every month like clock work, or direct depositing can be totally automated and not cost much at all and lower the cost to administer -- w/ GBI you'll be able to close every welfare building, layoff all welfare/gov't program staff for the poor, and save a lot of money that way.
- gremlinsinc 10y ago
  I agree, I think we should go to a flat tax something like 18%. No deductions, loopholes, credits. Flat 18% across the board or w/e is deemed needed to sustain things.. GBI is employed to give everyone a quality of life, but even the poorest citizen who--is getting free money, can then afford to be taxed the flat rate. Say you have 45k average income per person. and 250 million adults. That is (45,000 * 250,000,000) * .18 = 2,025,000,000,000 or 2 Trillion.. This doesn't factor in any Corporate / Estate / Wallstreet Speculation Taxes either. -- Which corporations should pay something similar to the 18% flat tax as well. Do that and you can almost see this thing paid for. We could also add a 4% sales tax or vat -- which will make it so anyone who's in the country on visa/illegal still pays taxes while here. This is all speculation as I don't know the exact average incomes, and # of adults, or if children will be given stipends, or what the perfect % flat tax is for everyone - but it's just an idea.
mason240 10y ago
>Why not discontinue basic income after someone makes, say, $50K per year? Then it's no longer UBI, it's just another wage/welfare cliff.
- JustSomeNobody 10y ago
  Potato Potato. Edit: oh, come on. UBI is a form of welfare. It supposedly is to make sure everyone's basic needs are met. Play with words all you want, but that is welfare.
  - mason240 10y ago
    >UBI is a form of welfare. It's not. It's fundamentally different from current welfare programs. that are complete with shortsighted baggage like income caps that are either so low they screw over the middle class, or so high they only exist to spite the high-income earners actually paying the taxes. Either case requires a whole bureaucracy to fund and hassle for everyone.
    - JustSomeNobody 10y ago
      > It's fundamentally different from current welfare programs. Well, yes. But that does not mean it isn't "welfare". It's for the welfare of the citizens of this country.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - twblalock 10y ago
    It's the U in UBI that makes UBI mean what it does -- universal means it applies to everyone. If anyone is excluded from the payments, the term "Universal Basic Income" will no longer be an accurate description of the program.
    - JustSomeNobody 10y ago
      Very true. And I think that is why sometimes you see it shortened to Basic Income.
hannigan54 10y ago
This is actually the whole point of UBI, to keep things simple without having to agree on cutoffs or tapering strategies. Your UBI "refund" is a constant amount but the taxes you pay increases with income, so the proportion of your taxes that you get back from the government tends to zero as you make more money. It might help to think of it as tax credit that every citizen receives. The credit barely puts a dent in the taxes paid by the 1%.
maxerickson 10y ago
People are tirelessly explaining to you that this wouldn't be a universal basic income anymore. The good news is that it would be funded by taxing people with higher incomes more. So people with high incomes wouldn't see any benefit from the UBI, they'd be paying for it. The difference is largely administrative and exactly how the benefit tapers off, not whether the (effective!) benefit tapers off or not.
bryanlarsen 10y ago
Everybody gets $12k and everybody's taxes go up 20%. The guy making $60k doesn't notice a thing. The guy making nothing pays 20% of nothing and comes out way ahead. Bill Gates pays a few more millions. Simpler and much more fair than an arbitrary cut off.

Why not discontinue basic income after someone makes, say, $50K per year? That would cut the cost of it. Actually it should taper off, if you make 48K and get a raise to 50K, you just got screwed.

Pamar 10y ago

Because then you have two types of citizens: those that are considered "parasites" because live entirely off the Basic Income, and those that not get it anymore. (The fundamental idea behind B.I. is that anyone should get it, the poorest guy in the neighborhood should get exactly as much as Bill Gates - there is some debate about convicts and/or minors, even if in the latter case most seem to agree that the money goes to the parents/caregivers).

JustSomeNobody 10y ago
Why would Bill Gates need it? Ask him and he'd probably say, "keep it."
- mason240 10y ago
  Why create a bureaucracy to monitor the incomes of of 330 million, and then force them to prove they are poor enough for a check just to exclude Bill Gates? Gates is paying at least 8 figures in Federal taxes a year, just send him a check like everyone else. How many people are you going to hire, and how much of everyone's time are you going to waste just to stop Gates from getting a UBI payment out of spite?
- Pamar 10y ago
  That's the point: he gets it even if he does not need it and if it is a negligible amount of his own personal income/fortune. Universal means just that: everyone gets it. No matter if they need it or not. Maybe you could read up something about the Alaska Fund Dividend to get an idea of how this is supposed to work in practice (the AFD is of course limited to Alaska, and way lower than the suggested 12000 USD target, but still gives an idea of how it is regulated and paid out in practice).
  - gremlinsinc 10y ago
    Agreed, the benefit also being == bureaucracy = jobs = costs. AI printing/cutting/mailing checks to everyone in America every month like clock work, or direct depositing can be totally automated and not cost much at all and lower the cost to administer -- w/ GBI you'll be able to close every welfare building, layoff all welfare/gov't program staff for the poor, and save a lot of money that way.
gremlinsinc 10y ago
I agree, I think we should go to a flat tax something like 18%. No deductions, loopholes, credits. Flat 18% across the board or w/e is deemed needed to sustain things.. GBI is employed to give everyone a quality of life, but even the poorest citizen who--is getting free money, can then afford to be taxed the flat rate. Say you have 45k average income per person. and 250 million adults. That is (45,000 * 250,000,000) * .18 = 2,025,000,000,000 or 2 Trillion.. This doesn't factor in any Corporate / Estate / Wallstreet Speculation Taxes either. -- Which corporations should pay something similar to the 18% flat tax as well. Do that and you can almost see this thing paid for. We could also add a 4% sales tax or vat -- which will make it so anyone who's in the country on visa/illegal still pays taxes while here. This is all speculation as I don't know the exact average incomes, and # of adults, or if children will be given stipends, or what the perfect % flat tax is for everyone - but it's just an idea.

mason240 10y ago

>Why not discontinue basic income after someone makes, say, $50K per year? Then it's no longer UBI, it's just another wage/welfare cliff.

JustSomeNobody 10y ago
Potato Potato. Edit: oh, come on. UBI is a form of welfare. It supposedly is to make sure everyone's basic needs are met. Play with words all you want, but that is welfare.
- mason240 10y ago
  >UBI is a form of welfare. It's not. It's fundamentally different from current welfare programs. that are complete with shortsighted baggage like income caps that are either so low they screw over the middle class, or so high they only exist to spite the high-income earners actually paying the taxes. Either case requires a whole bureaucracy to fund and hassle for everyone.
  - JustSomeNobody 10y ago
    > It's fundamentally different from current welfare programs. Well, yes. But that does not mean it isn't "welfare". It's for the welfare of the citizens of this country.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- twblalock 10y ago
  It's the U in UBI that makes UBI mean what it does -- universal means it applies to everyone. If anyone is excluded from the payments, the term "Universal Basic Income" will no longer be an accurate description of the program.
  - JustSomeNobody 10y ago
    Very true. And I think that is why sometimes you see it shortened to Basic Income.

hannigan54 10y ago

This is actually the whole point of UBI, to keep things simple without having to agree on cutoffs or tapering strategies. Your UBI "refund" is a constant amount but the taxes you pay increases with income, so the proportion of your taxes that you get back from the government tends to zero as you make more money. It might help to think of it as tax credit that every citizen receives. The credit barely puts a dent in the taxes paid by the 1%.

maxerickson 10y ago

People are tirelessly explaining to you that this wouldn't be a universal basic income anymore. The good news is that it would be funded by taxing people with higher incomes more. So people with high incomes wouldn't see any benefit from the UBI, they'd be paying for it. The difference is largely administrative and exactly how the benefit tapers off, not whether the (effective!) benefit tapers off or not.

bryanlarsen 10y ago

Everybody gets $12k and everybody's taxes go up 20%. The guy making $60k doesn't notice a thing. The guy making nothing pays 20% of nothing and comes out way ahead. Bill Gates pays a few more millions. Simpler and much more fair than an arbitrary cut off.