5 ms·

Keeping the calculation back of the envelope, if the population is 320 million and you want $12k a year for everyone, that's 3.9 trillion dollars. If US GDP is

Keeping the calculation back of the envelope, if the population is 320 million and you want $12k a year for everyone, that's 3.9 trillion dollars. If US GDP is 18 trillion, you would need tax an additional 20% of everything to fund UBI. The US taxes a lower share of its GDP than many countries (https://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/u-s-tax-rates-the-big-picture/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/u-s-tax-rates-the-big-pi...), but taxing 20% more would make it far and away the most taxed country in the world.

maratd 9y ago
Why are you using total population? I would only cut a check to adults. If you include kids, that's a hell of an incentive to have huge families. Adult population is 240 million. That's $2.8 trillion. Quite a bit less than your number.
- gremlinsinc 9y ago
  Everyone shares the home, so I'd think I'd do it by household...but cut 2 checks, average home rental cost nationwide + average cost of food at grocer. Then for each dependent add cost of food..maybe $100-200 extra. So say it's 1200 for rent, and 300 for food, and 3 kids at $100 extra they'd get like 1800 for everyone in household..
  - maratd 9y ago
    > Everyone shares the home, so I'd think I'd do it by household Sure, except that would discourage co-habitation/marriage. You get more checks by living apart. Balancing incentives is actually quite hard.
    - cam_l 9y ago
      I like this comment. I always do a mental check on solutions to see not how they succeed but how they fail.
- godelski 9y ago
  While we're at it, a good starting point might be that UBI only be used for those under the poverty line. We just guarantee people make it to the poverty line. But if we only look at below poverty we have 45m people making under 12k (per person, not household). So that's only $580B. That's a much easier number to come by. And could be less if you're bringing them up to that level, but I think this would need to be above poverty level. We could make it a little more fair and diminish the amount given based on income. If you're worried about incentives, this might ease problems on those near (but above) poverty line. Possibly providing more social mobility. This is just me spit-balling here though. We could look at "hybrid" methods that can help ease us into this shift in economy.
  - dyarosla 9y ago
    That's not UBI though; and defeats a lot of the positives of UBI.
    - godelski 9y ago
      I agree, but I'm suggesting it as a good starting step. And what about the graded case? Surely there is a diminishing effect of handing people money once they make a certain amount. And I'm just saying, with so many against the idea of UBI, just start with a small step. Not as effective, but better than where we're at, right?
skybrian 9y ago
It's a lot of money but keep in mind that everyone is getting some portion of it back again. You need to look at the net amount, which (assuming it's funded by a progressive income tax) will depend on income. Another question would be whether it's on top of social security or (more reasonably) social security is lowered so there is no net change. So the questions to ask are: (1) at what income do you break even? And (2) at what income does the tax increase become significant? It will depend on the details.
- dyarosla 9y ago
  I already consider this. Math still doesnt add up
  - bryanlarsen 9y ago
    Here's a spreadsheet with the math. Bottom right column is the net cost. Input is two numbers: incremental tax rate R and tax threshold T. Your net UBI is (I-T)*R. Let's tweak the spreadsheet to get a payment of $12K per household if income is 0. One way to get that is T=30K and R=20%. (The average size of a low-income household is ~2) With those two numbers, the net cost is approximately 0. But the whole point of UBI is that it can replace welfare, so if you can find $1T in savings, UBI can work with T=60K and R=10%. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1plUkyt9PuZ_WaLC_BaHgZQ6ekM7DRIOhV6CFudb75g8/edit?usp=sharing https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1plUkyt9PuZ_WaLC_BaHg...
    - dyarosla 9y ago
      Thank you!

maratd 9y ago

Why are you using total population? I would only cut a check to adults. If you include kids, that's a hell of an incentive to have huge families. Adult population is 240 million. That's $2.8 trillion. Quite a bit less than your number.

gremlinsinc 9y ago
Everyone shares the home, so I'd think I'd do it by household...but cut 2 checks, average home rental cost nationwide + average cost of food at grocer. Then for each dependent add cost of food..maybe $100-200 extra. So say it's 1200 for rent, and 300 for food, and 3 kids at $100 extra they'd get like 1800 for everyone in household..
- maratd 9y ago
  > Everyone shares the home, so I'd think I'd do it by household Sure, except that would discourage co-habitation/marriage. You get more checks by living apart. Balancing incentives is actually quite hard.
  - cam_l 9y ago
    I like this comment. I always do a mental check on solutions to see not how they succeed but how they fail.
godelski 9y ago
While we're at it, a good starting point might be that UBI only be used for those under the poverty line. We just guarantee people make it to the poverty line. But if we only look at below poverty we have 45m people making under 12k (per person, not household). So that's only $580B. That's a much easier number to come by. And could be less if you're bringing them up to that level, but I think this would need to be above poverty level. We could make it a little more fair and diminish the amount given based on income. If you're worried about incentives, this might ease problems on those near (but above) poverty line. Possibly providing more social mobility. This is just me spit-balling here though. We could look at "hybrid" methods that can help ease us into this shift in economy.
- dyarosla 9y ago
  That's not UBI though; and defeats a lot of the positives of UBI.
  - godelski 9y ago
    I agree, but I'm suggesting it as a good starting step. And what about the graded case? Surely there is a diminishing effect of handing people money once they make a certain amount. And I'm just saying, with so many against the idea of UBI, just start with a small step. Not as effective, but better than where we're at, right?

skybrian 9y ago

It's a lot of money but keep in mind that everyone is getting some portion of it back again. You need to look at the net amount, which (assuming it's funded by a progressive income tax) will depend on income. Another question would be whether it's on top of social security or (more reasonably) social security is lowered so there is no net change. So the questions to ask are: (1) at what income do you break even? And (2) at what income does the tax increase become significant? It will depend on the details.

dyarosla 9y ago
I already consider this. Math still doesnt add up
- bryanlarsen 9y ago
  Here's a spreadsheet with the math. Bottom right column is the net cost. Input is two numbers: incremental tax rate R and tax threshold T. Your net UBI is (I-T)*R. Let's tweak the spreadsheet to get a payment of $12K per household if income is 0. One way to get that is T=30K and R=20%. (The average size of a low-income household is ~2) With those two numbers, the net cost is approximately 0. But the whole point of UBI is that it can replace welfare, so if you can find $1T in savings, UBI can work with T=60K and R=10%. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1plUkyt9PuZ_WaLC_BaHgZQ6ekM7DRIOhV6CFudb75g8/edit?usp=sharing https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1plUkyt9PuZ_WaLC_BaHg...
  - dyarosla 9y ago
    Thank you!