10 ms·

The population of the US is 360 million. The total Federal tax revenue is ~3.5 trillion. That means that if 100% of total tax revenue were redistributed equal

The population of the US is 360 million. The total Federal tax revenue is ~3.5 trillion. That means that if 100% of total tax revenue were redistributed equally, each person would receive $10,000. That's only if the federal government stopped all other spending. No medicaid, no social security, no defense spending, no interstate highway funds. For a person making $100,000 and paying $17,000 in taxes (after deductions), they woild lose $7,000. For a person with no salary, they'd make $10,000. For reference, the poverty threshold is around $12,000 for one person. So you aren't really living a great exiatence. Only around the $50,000 mark does the taxes out equal the taxes in. (anything above that and you're paying more in taxes than you receive in UNI.) And once you take into account the fact that the federal government does have to spend money, the required tax revenue is probably much higher than it is currently -- at least 2x or 3x higher. This would make the breakeven point higher as well -- anyone making less than $100,000 would pay more in taxes than received by the UBI. So, essentially, any article that discusses the "benefits" of a minimum wage should discuss it in the context of how much it costs, because the world where everyone gets a $20,000 or $50,000 universal income has to be radically different than the world we live in now. Will the middle class want higher taxes so that they can receive little to no benefit? Seems politically unlikely to me.

justinzollars 9y ago
For some reason the idea of basic income is very popular on HN and in San Francisco. Thanks for doing some quick math to put the numbers in perspective.
- afarrell 9y ago
  Because as software engineers, we are in the business of either: - creating new service industies, many of which serve the rich and are thus mocked - Solving problems in cheaper ways cheaper than paying a human to solve them. This is equivalent to... well... unemploying people.
vostok 9y ago
> Will the middle class want higher taxes so that they can receive little to no benefit? Seems politically unlikely to me. I think the idea is that you raise taxes such that the middle class sees no difference, the rich pay more in taxes, and the poor receive more money. In 2015, median household income was $56,000 so you could raise taxes by 18% and the middle class would not feel a difference with a $10,000 basic income for each household. You can do the same thing with 36% and $20,000 basic income.
- JoshTriplett 9y ago
  Many of the jobs that people fear going away (and that thus motivate them to want BI) are the middle-class ones. And any revenue strategy to attempt to pay for it would need to take into account the substantially decreased tax revenue from all the people no longer working. (On the other hand, there might be increased tax revenue from jobs that now have to pay a higher salary to get people to do them. But at the very least, a static model seems insufficient.)
  - vostok 9y ago
    I'm simply demonstrating that there exists a tuple (tax increase, basic income) that does not affect the median household. Note that post tax income is still a monotonic function of pre tax income. This is one of the reasons why I support BI. The current system is rather complicated and there are rare instances where it's better to not work. If benefits programs are largely replaced by BI then you will always make more money by working. This systems is also much easier to administer and doesn't involve anyone checking if you "deserve" the benefits because everyone gets them.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - ryandrake 9y ago
    Right! The money from all the people no longer working is not just vanishing--it's simply being captured by a different set of people, namely already-wealthy business owners and shareholders. So, a government that wants to keep being funded needs to ensure its tax system is flexible enough to "follow the money".
treehau5 9y ago
One could argue if we went to basic income, we wouldn't need these artificially inflated costs that come as a result of an uncontrollable capitalistic greed to feed shareholders and corporate executives exorbitant amounts of profits. Maybe the dollar could regain some strength. There is no law that says currency must inflate in perpetuity.
- sithadmin 9y ago
  Even if costs of basic consumer goods were padded with as much as you're suggesting, how would a basic income somehow eliminate profit-seeking behaviors from the market? What you're hinting at would require strong controls on margins, which could be implemented without implementation of a basic income.
  - treehau5 9y ago
    Yes, and in a scenario where you can calculate the baseline pie of money of which profit-seeking actors can ration, you would almost be forced down this route to ensure a fair market, otherwise different markets will cannibalize each other. (Might make for a good book) Practically implemented, I imagine along with "basic income" there be "basic goods and services", which have said strongly controlled margins. The rest can remain the same. (I think basic income will never work under any scenario in this current economy, I just like to theorize. Reading some of your other comments on this I think we would agree on much)
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- spaginal 9y ago
  Capitalism is the normal mode of human interaction and has been the greatest lifter of people out of poverty period, while providing free choice and momentum to the economy that continues it's growth. This isn't even an assumption at this point. We've seen it with our own eyes. Government interference in this has created quite a few market anomalies over time, but overall capitalism in a free market works, and works REALLY well. A basic income will never work for one fundamental reason, you have to place a solid number to it outside of any other factor in an economy, whether it's $30,000 or $50,000 a year, and everywhere we live is different and has different requirements according to the local economies. Furthermore, you would need a very large tax base to support it, or a never ending printing press that ignores debt. In order to make the system fair so that it actually will do the intended job that people want it to, you would need to exercise a strangling amount of control over the economy and people's lives. This would in turn result in a much larger bureaucratic government with more costs and corruption, more state control of industries, housing and real estate, food production, energy production, less freedom in the consumer market due to increased price controls and regulations, and an eventual collapse of the economy when companies drop from the economy due to too much regulation and taxes, high barriers to entry, and government corruption. This idea has been exercised in one form or the other over the 20th century to eventual failure each time. Bread lines, needs assistance, food, free government housing, it's all a form of basic income at a fundamental level and it's always failed.
chc 9y ago
IIRC the middle class wouldn't need higher taxes to significantly increase tax revenue unless your idea of "middle-class" is making seven figures.
JoshTriplett 9y ago
This is exactly the issue. And going halfway will do less than no good; if it isn't enough to live on (at a very basic level), the experiment would fail. While there are many programs that could potentially be cut to make way for BI, that wouldn't be nearly enough to actually pay for it. (And any complexity added to attempt to reduce its cost, such as not paying it to people who don't need it, starts to remove its benefit and add overhead, not to mention creating perverse incentives in many cases.) There's also a question of locale adjustments, or lack thereof. On the one hand, "just enough to live on" in Mississippi is quite different from "just enough to live on" in California. On the other hand, should the federal government subsidize living in an expensive location rather than a cheap one? Or should expensive states have to supplement BI? (And that would further cement their position as expensive.)
- mrec 9y ago
  > if it isn't enough to live on (at a very basic level), the experiment would fail In terms of what I'm hoping for I agree, but it does depend on who you're pitching to and what their goals are. Assuming that BI is restricted to citizens, one non-obvious consequence of even a partial BI is that it serves as a protectionist barrier against non-citizen immigrant labour - a citizen claiming $4000 BI can afford to work for $4000 less than a non-citizen while maintaining the same standard of living.
- rayiner 9y ago
  > On the other hand, should the federal government subsidize living in an expensive location rather than a cheap one? Or should expensive states have to supplement BI? (And that would further cement their position as expensive.) The beauty of basic income is that makes location much less relevant. Poor folks don't spend hours commuting into high-COL areas for funsies. They do it because that's where the low-skill service jobs are.
  - JoshTriplett 9y ago
    True, but that assumes people are 1) willing and 2) able to move.
kbenson 9y ago
I caught the tail-end of an Intelligence Squared debate about this on the radio the other day, and much the same was put forth by one side[1]. The basic gist of one side being that there has actually been great advances in lifting people out of poverty, and basic income is infeasible, so let's not throw away what we have now before putting more into it to make it better (at least that was my interpretation). I have to say, as someone that found the idea of basic income attractive (if leery about how it could be enacted), I found the arguments towards more targeted programs for those that actually need it as opposed to everyone very compelling. 1: http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/universal-basic-income-safety-net-future http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/universal-basic...
kingkawn 9y ago
Justifications for stasis pouring like a waterfall
koolba 9y ago
It's actually more as the government spends more than it takes in.
- quadrangle 9y ago
  Right (and this is just one of tons of items the OP you are replying to is ignoring). But spending more then revenue just means money supply increases. Considering productivity/growth/population/consumption changes, this may or may not have inflationary effects. If the spending equaled revenue, it would be a stable money supply which may or may not be deflationary… oh, if only everything were as simple as our dogma and mental models.
enugu 9y ago
A 2% growth rate means that income doubles in 35 years, so one has an option of getting basic income of say 20,000 current dollars for the next generation, if one were to exercise this option. (Doubling would actually generate more than 20k, but growth is not assured especially these days.) But this would mean that significant share of growth in wealth is channeled to the basic income project.
Jemaclus 9y ago
One thing: 360M people, but you probably wouldn't give newborns $10,000. Call it 230M adults over 18 years of age (per US Census data) and the numbers aren't quite as dire, though as you pointed out, still untenable. I would also point out that "universal basic income" does not necessarily have to displace regular income. Lots of UBI critics say it's unaffordable, in part because they consider it a replacement source of income, whereas as you've pointed out, that's largely impractical. A supplemental UBI would both be more affordable by society at large and have a similar impact, while minimizing the fears of the critics about how "people will just stop working". You would probably still have to work, but that's okay, because multiple studies have shown that even a modest guaranteed $250/mo can improve upward mobility for families, as well as other ancillary benefits such as reduced stress. I'd be interested to find out about the feasibility of the notion of "Basic", where everyone is guaranteed the basics (food, clothing, shelter, internet, healthcare) no matter what, and if you want more than that, you get a job. I've long suspected that you could rid the world of some huge percentage like 75% of its workforce and the remaining 25% would be able to provide for the rest, cutting down on costs and other things. For example, fewer people commuting would lead to fewer cars on the roads, leading to fewer accidents and fewer roads that need to be maintained and fewer offices that need to be built and powered on, and so on.
- 0xB31B1B 9y ago
  We already have "supplemental income" with the EITC. It's literally designed for that purpose, it's just not universal
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
amoorthy 9y ago
Good first approximation but I think there are some limitations. For example, basic Income advocates do not say that everyone (children, for example) get the cash. So your denominator of 360M is incorrect and should be reduced by at least 75M. A 2006 study put the cost at 1.8Tr. And then goes on to detail how it can be done, largely by eliminating new tax loopholes versus introducing new taxes: http://www.usbig.net/papers/144-Sheahen-RefundableTaxCredit.pdf http://www.usbig.net/papers/144-Sheahen-RefundableTaxCredit..... For a less academic answer, the author Scott Saterns has spent a lot of time researching this topic and even lived on a simulated basic income for a year: https://medium.com/basic-income/what-if-you-got-1-000-a-month-just-for-being-alive-i-decided-to-find-out-9e8591976c37 https://medium.com/basic-income/what-if-you-got-1-000-a-mont...
- trendia 9y ago
  This is funny because he has the exact same conclusion that I have regarding the costs--that the UBI would be around $10,000 and that the breakeven would be $50,000--yet he believes that to be feasible while I don't. But the difference between our views is this: politically it's infeasible because middle class people are more politically active. People making over $50,000/year will lose money on thus deal. Thus, even if it's better for people making less than $50,000, it is unlikely to ever be enacted. Finally, he talks about fixing tax "loopholes" but in reality he's talking about removing deductions. Those deductions are supported by many people... go ahead and try to remove the mortgage interest deduction, and see how far you can get! (polling support for its removal is almost zero)
- grahamburger 9y ago
  Withholding UBI from children would be a devastating blow to exactly the people who need the most help - unemployable single parents and their children. Of course, we could supplement their UBI with means tested additional assistance, but ... Then we're back where we started.
sambe 9y ago
The idea isn't to let everyone live at median income with no job. Most would suggest that the basic income level could be set below current minimum wage, more like current unemployment benefits + basic subsidies. That would probably be more around your $10k figure? You say this still doesn't work; perhaps that's true. It's not inconceivable that some tax rises would be palatable in exchange for this freedom. There may also be savings by eliminating other social benefits in exchange for this payment. Sure, eliminating social security etc would mean this income paid for very basic lifestyle, but you still have 40 hours in the week to do with as you please. The bigger questions for me are labour force participation and (present day) price inflation
- atemerev 9y ago
  Even 100% tax rates (the total fully dictatorial income redistribution) will not be enough. And, of course, not needed, since it will make the economy uncompetitive (Soviet block countries learned this the hard way).
  - dontreact 9y ago
    You could give everyone about 50000 a year with evenly distributed income. Not that I think that's a good idea
  - dontreact 9y ago
    You could give everyone about 50000 a year with evenly distributed income. Not that I think that's a good idea
rayiner 9y ago
Raising U.S. taxes to the non-U.S. OECD average,[1] and eliminating "other" welfare spending (excluding Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) would give you about $2 trillion. That's enough for $9,000 per adult and $2,000 per child, assuming everyone already on Social Security gets to keep that and is excluded from basic income. [1] For the median household, the basic income will far outweigh the tax increase.
- rhino369 9y ago
  That doesn't seem like enough. Even things like unemployment benefits typically pay a lot more than that. You'd basically be robbing the very poorest to pay the lower half of the middle class. A lot of current welfare recipients are getting a lot more than 9k + 2k per kid. Not sure I see the benefit in a scheme like that.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    Part of the problem with welfare (and unemployment benefits) is that you have to prove you're looking for work, which means living in a place where $9k doesn't go too far. But that'd be enough to scrape by in say rural Georgia.
bryanlarsen 9y ago
Doubling taxes to pay for UBI isn't a big deal, since to anybody making a median income the government is giving them the money to pay for those increased taxes. That's why a negative income tax is probably politically more feasible. So even though it's functionally exactly the same thing as a UBI, it doesn't feel like a tax increase on the middle class.
- jpindar 9y ago
  They are not the same. You can't buy groceries with a piece of paper that says you're going to pay less taxes next year.
  - bryanlarsen 9y ago
    Taxes don't have to be annual.
ska 9y ago
This is an old argument, but it isn't very useful. The problem with simplifications is you can easily go too far, and not realize it. This kind of arithmetic assumes the tax code stays basically the same. This is just silly. The whole point of UBI schemes for those that support them, is to be part of a complete overhaul of the tax code, in order to [avoid bad things happening]. Regardless if you support this view or not, you can't really get anywhere without accepting the premise. Ok, so what if there is a real overhaul? First off, a lot of programs and tax credits don't make any sense anymore. So your number of 10k/person wiping out the entire tax base just doesn't work. More realistically keeping the rest of spending and tax code fixed, people have worked out that you end up with approx $3k/person (just using round numbers) in UBI "for free". Not much of a UBI rate, obviously, but hardly the scenario you present. This doesn't really speak to the economic impact of that many state and federal employees suddenly being unemployed, either, but bear with it for now. So how do you get from 3k/person to 10k/person? Bear in mind, the whole premise of UBI is that a combination of income inequality and automation are going to unavoidably cause massive job loss and further inequality. So you restructure your tax code to directly address that. Something like an effective rate of 6 or 7% on the first 150k/yr (i.e. basically the same as today), and double that or a bit more on anything above... would get you to the 10k/person, without touching any current spending. That last part is important, this assumes entitlements like SS through payroll taxes are left alone. Obviously, it would be more sensible to roll those whole programs into a UBI also. I'm not saying this is the right thing to do, I'm just pointing out that the arithmetic you are using isn't actually demonstrating anything useful. UBI programs only make sense if you make progressive changes in the tax code, but they can be made to work in a way that is not a radical change to today. [edit] Found a similar but better articulated argument, see: https://medium.com/whatever-source-derived/the-case-against-a-universal-basic-income-that-isnt-b95cc84e3b24 https://medium.com/whatever-source-derived/the-case-against-...
mrec 9y ago
This sounds plausible, but my question in this context is always: given that people in first world countries are not currently starving to death by the millions, where is the money coming from to keep them alive? If this money were to be replaced by a UBI, who would realize the savings? Like the apocryphal aerodynamic analysis proving that bumblebees can't possibly fly, an analysis concluding that we can't possibly afford to keep people alive suggests that we're probably missing something. Because we do.
- trendia 9y ago
  We do have systems in place to keep people alive. Food stamps, medicaid, medicare, social security, soup kitchens, charities, etc etc. Those peograms are targeted to people in need, not just "just because
  - mrec 9y ago
    Yes, but so what? People not in need would still be benefitting from BI payments to them, and those benefits should be offset against any increase in tax and/or reduction in salary. There's a legitimate question as to whether a UBI would encourage slacking, but that's a separate issue from whether or not the money exists. The money clearly does exist, because it's already being spent. It's just being spent in what's arguably a humiliating and distorting way.
Chathamization 9y ago
It's easy to think of a UBI scheme that doesn't change the net tax you pay to the government. For instance, everyone gets an extra $10,000 a year, everyone pays an extra $10,000 a year. No change in the net amount of money people pay, no change in the federal government. But that doesn't do anything, so let's tweak it a little. Everyone gets an extra $10,000 a year, everyone pays an extra $10,000 a year, except you use TANF money to offset that payment for lower income families. So if you're above the TANF threshold, you see no difference, like in the first scenario. If you are below the TANF threshold, you're only paying back some of the $10,000 you get (the rest being paid with TANF funds). Again, no increase in taxes, no increase in the budget. You can keep fiddling with the numbers - you can use food stamp money to lower the amount those on the lower end need to pay back (or increase the payout), and keep using other funds allocated for the impoverished to do the same. These types of plans would all be neutral in terms of tax burden and the federal budget. Why would you do this? It'd be much simpler and better than the current system in a lot of ways. If you loose your job you automatically have the supplemental income - you don't have to worry about navigating a dozen different government agencies. You don't have to worry about going in for drug testing if some governor decides to make that mandatory for assistance, or any of the other junk that comes with stigmatized assistance (since everyone would be getting the assistance, the difference would only be at the tax end, which already exists). Now, I'd argue that increased taxes on the wealthy to bolster the program is a good idea. I'd also argue that if people think helping the impoverished in their country is "no benefit" to them, that's part of a much broader problem (the same problem where people are happy to watch the infrastructure of their country collapse if it means they pay a few hundred dollars a year less in taxes). But even if you don't want to increase the tax burden on anyone - not even the richest citizens - you can still devise workable UBI implementations.
tw04 9y ago
You're missing the point though - if all manufacturing becomes automated, either the cost of goods should drop precipitously, or the taxation on employers without any actual employees should increase significantly. Furthermore, let's be real - the top tax bracket can and should return to where it was in the 50s. You know, the good ol' days republicans constantly talk about wanting to bring back.
falcolas 9y ago
The GDP of the US is over $18 trillion (around $50,000 per person). The portion of tax income from corporations is about 1/3 of the total tax income. About 2/3 of current tax spending would be eliminated by a UBI. It seems to me like there's a bit more wiggle room to allocate towards taking care of the country's citizens without gutting the rest of the government. Especially as more and more of those citizens are automated out of jobs.

justinzollars 9y ago

For some reason the idea of basic income is very popular on HN and in San Francisco. Thanks for doing some quick math to put the numbers in perspective.

afarrell 9y ago
Because as software engineers, we are in the business of either: - creating new service industies, many of which serve the rich and are thus mocked - Solving problems in cheaper ways cheaper than paying a human to solve them. This is equivalent to... well... unemploying people.

vostok 9y ago

> Will the middle class want higher taxes so that they can receive little to no benefit? Seems politically unlikely to me. I think the idea is that you raise taxes such that the middle class sees no difference, the rich pay more in taxes, and the poor receive more money. In 2015, median household income was $56,000 so you could raise taxes by 18% and the middle class would not feel a difference with a $10,000 basic income for each household. You can do the same thing with 36% and $20,000 basic income.

JoshTriplett 9y ago
Many of the jobs that people fear going away (and that thus motivate them to want BI) are the middle-class ones. And any revenue strategy to attempt to pay for it would need to take into account the substantially decreased tax revenue from all the people no longer working. (On the other hand, there might be increased tax revenue from jobs that now have to pay a higher salary to get people to do them. But at the very least, a static model seems insufficient.)
- vostok 9y ago
  I'm simply demonstrating that there exists a tuple (tax increase, basic income) that does not affect the median household. Note that post tax income is still a monotonic function of pre tax income. This is one of the reasons why I support BI. The current system is rather complicated and there are rare instances where it's better to not work. If benefits programs are largely replaced by BI then you will always make more money by working. This systems is also much easier to administer and doesn't involve anyone checking if you "deserve" the benefits because everyone gets them.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- ryandrake 9y ago
  Right! The money from all the people no longer working is not just vanishing--it's simply being captured by a different set of people, namely already-wealthy business owners and shareholders. So, a government that wants to keep being funded needs to ensure its tax system is flexible enough to "follow the money".

treehau5 9y ago

One could argue if we went to basic income, we wouldn't need these artificially inflated costs that come as a result of an uncontrollable capitalistic greed to feed shareholders and corporate executives exorbitant amounts of profits. Maybe the dollar could regain some strength. There is no law that says currency must inflate in perpetuity.

sithadmin 9y ago
Even if costs of basic consumer goods were padded with as much as you're suggesting, how would a basic income somehow eliminate profit-seeking behaviors from the market? What you're hinting at would require strong controls on margins, which could be implemented without implementation of a basic income.
- treehau5 9y ago
  Yes, and in a scenario where you can calculate the baseline pie of money of which profit-seeking actors can ration, you would almost be forced down this route to ensure a fair market, otherwise different markets will cannibalize each other. (Might make for a good book) Practically implemented, I imagine along with "basic income" there be "basic goods and services", which have said strongly controlled margins. The rest can remain the same. (I think basic income will never work under any scenario in this current economy, I just like to theorize. Reading some of your other comments on this I think we would agree on much)
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
spaginal 9y ago
Capitalism is the normal mode of human interaction and has been the greatest lifter of people out of poverty period, while providing free choice and momentum to the economy that continues it's growth. This isn't even an assumption at this point. We've seen it with our own eyes. Government interference in this has created quite a few market anomalies over time, but overall capitalism in a free market works, and works REALLY well. A basic income will never work for one fundamental reason, you have to place a solid number to it outside of any other factor in an economy, whether it's $30,000 or $50,000 a year, and everywhere we live is different and has different requirements according to the local economies. Furthermore, you would need a very large tax base to support it, or a never ending printing press that ignores debt. In order to make the system fair so that it actually will do the intended job that people want it to, you would need to exercise a strangling amount of control over the economy and people's lives. This would in turn result in a much larger bureaucratic government with more costs and corruption, more state control of industries, housing and real estate, food production, energy production, less freedom in the consumer market due to increased price controls and regulations, and an eventual collapse of the economy when companies drop from the economy due to too much regulation and taxes, high barriers to entry, and government corruption. This idea has been exercised in one form or the other over the 20th century to eventual failure each time. Bread lines, needs assistance, food, free government housing, it's all a form of basic income at a fundamental level and it's always failed.

chc 9y ago

IIRC the middle class wouldn't need higher taxes to significantly increase tax revenue unless your idea of "middle-class" is making seven figures.

JoshTriplett 9y ago

This is exactly the issue. And going halfway will do less than no good; if it isn't enough to live on (at a very basic level), the experiment would fail. While there are many programs that could potentially be cut to make way for BI, that wouldn't be nearly enough to actually pay for it. (And any complexity added to attempt to reduce its cost, such as not paying it to people who don't need it, starts to remove its benefit and add overhead, not to mention creating perverse incentives in many cases.) There's also a question of locale adjustments, or lack thereof. On the one hand, "just enough to live on" in Mississippi is quite different from "just enough to live on" in California. On the other hand, should the federal government subsidize living in an expensive location rather than a cheap one? Or should expensive states have to supplement BI? (And that would further cement their position as expensive.)

mrec 9y ago
> if it isn't enough to live on (at a very basic level), the experiment would fail In terms of what I'm hoping for I agree, but it does depend on who you're pitching to and what their goals are. Assuming that BI is restricted to citizens, one non-obvious consequence of even a partial BI is that it serves as a protectionist barrier against non-citizen immigrant labour - a citizen claiming $4000 BI can afford to work for $4000 less than a non-citizen while maintaining the same standard of living.
rayiner 9y ago
> On the other hand, should the federal government subsidize living in an expensive location rather than a cheap one? Or should expensive states have to supplement BI? (And that would further cement their position as expensive.) The beauty of basic income is that makes location much less relevant. Poor folks don't spend hours commuting into high-COL areas for funsies. They do it because that's where the low-skill service jobs are.
- JoshTriplett 9y ago
  True, but that assumes people are 1) willing and 2) able to move.

kbenson 9y ago

I caught the tail-end of an Intelligence Squared debate about this on the radio the other day, and much the same was put forth by one side[1]. The basic gist of one side being that there has actually been great advances in lifting people out of poverty, and basic income is infeasible, so let's not throw away what we have now before putting more into it to make it better (at least that was my interpretation). I have to say, as someone that found the idea of basic income attractive (if leery about how it could be enacted), I found the arguments towards more targeted programs for those that actually need it as opposed to everyone very compelling. 1: http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/universal-basic-income-safety-net-future http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/universal-basic...

kingkawn 9y ago

Justifications for stasis pouring like a waterfall

koolba 9y ago

It's actually more as the government spends more than it takes in.

quadrangle 9y ago
Right (and this is just one of tons of items the OP you are replying to is ignoring). But spending more then revenue just means money supply increases. Considering productivity/growth/population/consumption changes, this may or may not have inflationary effects. If the spending equaled revenue, it would be a stable money supply which may or may not be deflationary… oh, if only everything were as simple as our dogma and mental models.

enugu 9y ago

A 2% growth rate means that income doubles in 35 years, so one has an option of getting basic income of say 20,000 current dollars for the next generation, if one were to exercise this option. (Doubling would actually generate more than 20k, but growth is not assured especially these days.) But this would mean that significant share of growth in wealth is channeled to the basic income project.

Jemaclus 9y ago

One thing: 360M people, but you probably wouldn't give newborns $10,000. Call it 230M adults over 18 years of age (per US Census data) and the numbers aren't quite as dire, though as you pointed out, still untenable. I would also point out that "universal basic income" does not necessarily have to displace regular income. Lots of UBI critics say it's unaffordable, in part because they consider it a replacement source of income, whereas as you've pointed out, that's largely impractical. A supplemental UBI would both be more affordable by society at large and have a similar impact, while minimizing the fears of the critics about how "people will just stop working". You would probably still have to work, but that's okay, because multiple studies have shown that even a modest guaranteed $250/mo can improve upward mobility for families, as well as other ancillary benefits such as reduced stress. I'd be interested to find out about the feasibility of the notion of "Basic", where everyone is guaranteed the basics (food, clothing, shelter, internet, healthcare) no matter what, and if you want more than that, you get a job. I've long suspected that you could rid the world of some huge percentage like 75% of its workforce and the remaining 25% would be able to provide for the rest, cutting down on costs and other things. For example, fewer people commuting would lead to fewer cars on the roads, leading to fewer accidents and fewer roads that need to be maintained and fewer offices that need to be built and powered on, and so on.

0xB31B1B 9y ago
We already have "supplemental income" with the EITC. It's literally designed for that purpose, it's just not universal
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

amoorthy 9y ago

Good first approximation but I think there are some limitations. For example, basic Income advocates do not say that everyone (children, for example) get the cash. So your denominator of 360M is incorrect and should be reduced by at least 75M. A 2006 study put the cost at 1.8Tr. And then goes on to detail how it can be done, largely by eliminating new tax loopholes versus introducing new taxes: http://www.usbig.net/papers/144-Sheahen-RefundableTaxCredit.pdf http://www.usbig.net/papers/144-Sheahen-RefundableTaxCredit..... For a less academic answer, the author Scott Saterns has spent a lot of time researching this topic and even lived on a simulated basic income for a year: https://medium.com/basic-income/what-if-you-got-1-000-a-month-just-for-being-alive-i-decided-to-find-out-9e8591976c37 https://medium.com/basic-income/what-if-you-got-1-000-a-mont...

trendia 9y ago
This is funny because he has the exact same conclusion that I have regarding the costs--that the UBI would be around $10,000 and that the breakeven would be $50,000--yet he believes that to be feasible while I don't. But the difference between our views is this: politically it's infeasible because middle class people are more politically active. People making over $50,000/year will lose money on thus deal. Thus, even if it's better for people making less than $50,000, it is unlikely to ever be enacted. Finally, he talks about fixing tax "loopholes" but in reality he's talking about removing deductions. Those deductions are supported by many people... go ahead and try to remove the mortgage interest deduction, and see how far you can get! (polling support for its removal is almost zero)
grahamburger 9y ago
Withholding UBI from children would be a devastating blow to exactly the people who need the most help - unemployable single parents and their children. Of course, we could supplement their UBI with means tested additional assistance, but ... Then we're back where we started.

sambe 9y ago

The idea isn't to let everyone live at median income with no job. Most would suggest that the basic income level could be set below current minimum wage, more like current unemployment benefits + basic subsidies. That would probably be more around your $10k figure? You say this still doesn't work; perhaps that's true. It's not inconceivable that some tax rises would be palatable in exchange for this freedom. There may also be savings by eliminating other social benefits in exchange for this payment. Sure, eliminating social security etc would mean this income paid for very basic lifestyle, but you still have 40 hours in the week to do with as you please. The bigger questions for me are labour force participation and (present day) price inflation

atemerev 9y ago
Even 100% tax rates (the total fully dictatorial income redistribution) will not be enough. And, of course, not needed, since it will make the economy uncompetitive (Soviet block countries learned this the hard way).
- dontreact 9y ago
  You could give everyone about 50000 a year with evenly distributed income. Not that I think that's a good idea
- dontreact 9y ago
  You could give everyone about 50000 a year with evenly distributed income. Not that I think that's a good idea

rayiner 9y ago

Raising U.S. taxes to the non-U.S. OECD average,[1] and eliminating "other" welfare spending (excluding Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) would give you about $2 trillion. That's enough for $9,000 per adult and $2,000 per child, assuming everyone already on Social Security gets to keep that and is excluded from basic income. [1] For the median household, the basic income will far outweigh the tax increase.

rhino369 9y ago
That doesn't seem like enough. Even things like unemployment benefits typically pay a lot more than that. You'd basically be robbing the very poorest to pay the lower half of the middle class. A lot of current welfare recipients are getting a lot more than 9k + 2k per kid. Not sure I see the benefit in a scheme like that.
- rayiner 9y ago
  Part of the problem with welfare (and unemployment benefits) is that you have to prove you're looking for work, which means living in a place where $9k doesn't go too far. But that'd be enough to scrape by in say rural Georgia.

bryanlarsen 9y ago

Doubling taxes to pay for UBI isn't a big deal, since to anybody making a median income the government is giving them the money to pay for those increased taxes. That's why a negative income tax is probably politically more feasible. So even though it's functionally exactly the same thing as a UBI, it doesn't feel like a tax increase on the middle class.

jpindar 9y ago
They are not the same. You can't buy groceries with a piece of paper that says you're going to pay less taxes next year.
- bryanlarsen 9y ago
  Taxes don't have to be annual.

ska 9y ago

This is an old argument, but it isn't very useful. The problem with simplifications is you can easily go too far, and not realize it. This kind of arithmetic assumes the tax code stays basically the same. This is just silly. The whole point of UBI schemes for those that support them, is to be part of a complete overhaul of the tax code, in order to [avoid bad things happening]. Regardless if you support this view or not, you can't really get anywhere without accepting the premise. Ok, so what if there is a real overhaul? First off, a lot of programs and tax credits don't make any sense anymore. So your number of 10k/person wiping out the entire tax base just doesn't work. More realistically keeping the rest of spending and tax code fixed, people have worked out that you end up with approx $3k/person (just using round numbers) in UBI "for free". Not much of a UBI rate, obviously, but hardly the scenario you present. This doesn't really speak to the economic impact of that many state and federal employees suddenly being unemployed, either, but bear with it for now. So how do you get from 3k/person to 10k/person? Bear in mind, the whole premise of UBI is that a combination of income inequality and automation are going to unavoidably cause massive job loss and further inequality. So you restructure your tax code to directly address that. Something like an effective rate of 6 or 7% on the first 150k/yr (i.e. basically the same as today), and double that or a bit more on anything above... would get you to the 10k/person, without touching any current spending. That last part is important, this assumes entitlements like SS through payroll taxes are left alone. Obviously, it would be more sensible to roll those whole programs into a UBI also. I'm not saying this is the right thing to do, I'm just pointing out that the arithmetic you are using isn't actually demonstrating anything useful. UBI programs only make sense if you make progressive changes in the tax code, but they can be made to work in a way that is not a radical change to today. [edit] Found a similar but better articulated argument, see: https://medium.com/whatever-source-derived/the-case-against-a-universal-basic-income-that-isnt-b95cc84e3b24 https://medium.com/whatever-source-derived/the-case-against-...

mrec 9y ago

This sounds plausible, but my question in this context is always: given that people in first world countries are not currently starving to death by the millions, where is the money coming from to keep them alive? If this money were to be replaced by a UBI, who would realize the savings? Like the apocryphal aerodynamic analysis proving that bumblebees can't possibly fly, an analysis concluding that we can't possibly afford to keep people alive suggests that we're probably missing something. Because we do.

trendia 9y ago
We do have systems in place to keep people alive. Food stamps, medicaid, medicare, social security, soup kitchens, charities, etc etc. Those peograms are targeted to people in need, not just "just because
- mrec 9y ago
  Yes, but so what? People not in need would still be benefitting from BI payments to them, and those benefits should be offset against any increase in tax and/or reduction in salary. There's a legitimate question as to whether a UBI would encourage slacking, but that's a separate issue from whether or not the money exists. The money clearly does exist, because it's already being spent. It's just being spent in what's arguably a humiliating and distorting way.

Chathamization 9y ago

It's easy to think of a UBI scheme that doesn't change the net tax you pay to the government. For instance, everyone gets an extra $10,000 a year, everyone pays an extra $10,000 a year. No change in the net amount of money people pay, no change in the federal government. But that doesn't do anything, so let's tweak it a little. Everyone gets an extra $10,000 a year, everyone pays an extra $10,000 a year, except you use TANF money to offset that payment for lower income families. So if you're above the TANF threshold, you see no difference, like in the first scenario. If you are below the TANF threshold, you're only paying back some of the $10,000 you get (the rest being paid with TANF funds). Again, no increase in taxes, no increase in the budget. You can keep fiddling with the numbers - you can use food stamp money to lower the amount those on the lower end need to pay back (or increase the payout), and keep using other funds allocated for the impoverished to do the same. These types of plans would all be neutral in terms of tax burden and the federal budget. Why would you do this? It'd be much simpler and better than the current system in a lot of ways. If you loose your job you automatically have the supplemental income - you don't have to worry about navigating a dozen different government agencies. You don't have to worry about going in for drug testing if some governor decides to make that mandatory for assistance, or any of the other junk that comes with stigmatized assistance (since everyone would be getting the assistance, the difference would only be at the tax end, which already exists). Now, I'd argue that increased taxes on the wealthy to bolster the program is a good idea. I'd also argue that if people think helping the impoverished in their country is "no benefit" to them, that's part of a much broader problem (the same problem where people are happy to watch the infrastructure of their country collapse if it means they pay a few hundred dollars a year less in taxes). But even if you don't want to increase the tax burden on anyone - not even the richest citizens - you can still devise workable UBI implementations.

tw04 9y ago

You're missing the point though - if all manufacturing becomes automated, either the cost of goods should drop precipitously, or the taxation on employers without any actual employees should increase significantly. Furthermore, let's be real - the top tax bracket can and should return to where it was in the 50s. You know, the good ol' days republicans constantly talk about wanting to bring back.

falcolas 9y ago

The GDP of the US is over $18 trillion (around $50,000 per person). The portion of tax income from corporations is about 1/3 of the total tax income. About 2/3 of current tax spending would be eliminated by a UBI. It seems to me like there's a bit more wiggle room to allocate towards taking care of the country's citizens without gutting the rest of the government. Especially as more and more of those citizens are automated out of jobs.