3 ms·

Here is what I calculate 250m[1] * $1000 * 12 = $3,000,000,000,000 Now take away the people on social security - 56m Now take away the people currently employed

Here is what I calculate 250m[1] * $1000 * 12 = $3,000,000,000,000 Now take away the people on social security - 56m Now take away the people currently employed - 145m Give us around 50 million people, at a cost of around 600 billion per year. Wow, thats a lot BUT if we now look at cost for existing social welfare programs - 927 billion. Means we would save around 300 billion per year! Of course families would require more, but this does not seem quite as crazy for a country that has a 18 trillion GDP.

openasocket 9y ago
Except those social welfare programs would still be essential. If you're poor and get sick, or you're disabled, you get a lot more (and need a lot more) than $1000/mo from today's social welfare programs. Also, your math doesn't make sense. You say we currently spend $927B on social welfare programs and propose BI as a complete replacement for those programs. But that number includes Social Security, and you subtracted the people on social security from your list of people. Social security cost $917B by the way, almost all of our social welfare spending. You also can't just subtract all the people currently employed. A large portion of people on welfare are employed. https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-w...
- BatFastard 9y ago
  Some good points. So what would you estimate and how?
  - openasocket 9y ago
    Assume you give $1000/mo to all people below the poverty line as a replacement for all current social safety net programs (including ETC and SNAP and Social Security, but not or Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP). There are currently 43.1 million Americans living in poverty. But, keep in mind many Americans are only above the poverty line because of government assistance. According to the link I gave, without any government assistance it is estimated 79.1 million Americans would be in poverty. You wind up with ~$949.2B, which is close to what we're paying currently. It would also involve cuts to various groups. For instance, the average retiree gets ~$1,300/mo from Social Security. There's actually a larger issue I forgot to mention: what you're talking about isn't actually BI. In your computation you assume we're only paying $1000/mo to those who are not on Social Security and are not employed. But the whole point of Basic Income is that it goes to everyone. What you're talking about is just a different form of welfare, and completely unrelated to what this system is proposing.
    - BatFastard 9y ago
      Social security is its own beast, but tapping into those funds would add about 850 billion more. So maybe a better name for it would be Guaranteed Minimum Income, that way it takes employed people out of the pool. And yes you could call it welfare. It would also replace the unemployment income system, another source of expenses.
    - BatFastard 9y ago
      The tapered income tax idea has value. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/30/15712160/basic-income-oecd-aei-replace-welfare-state https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/30/15712160/b...

openasocket 9y ago

Except those social welfare programs would still be essential. If you're poor and get sick, or you're disabled, you get a lot more (and need a lot more) than $1000/mo from today's social welfare programs. Also, your math doesn't make sense. You say we currently spend $927B on social welfare programs and propose BI as a complete replacement for those programs. But that number includes Social Security, and you subtracted the people on social security from your list of people. Social security cost $917B by the way, almost all of our social welfare spending. You also can't just subtract all the people currently employed. A large portion of people on welfare are employed. https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-w...

BatFastard 9y ago
Some good points. So what would you estimate and how?
- openasocket 9y ago
  Assume you give $1000/mo to all people below the poverty line as a replacement for all current social safety net programs (including ETC and SNAP and Social Security, but not or Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP). There are currently 43.1 million Americans living in poverty. But, keep in mind many Americans are only above the poverty line because of government assistance. According to the link I gave, without any government assistance it is estimated 79.1 million Americans would be in poverty. You wind up with ~$949.2B, which is close to what we're paying currently. It would also involve cuts to various groups. For instance, the average retiree gets ~$1,300/mo from Social Security. There's actually a larger issue I forgot to mention: what you're talking about isn't actually BI. In your computation you assume we're only paying $1000/mo to those who are not on Social Security and are not employed. But the whole point of Basic Income is that it goes to everyone. What you're talking about is just a different form of welfare, and completely unrelated to what this system is proposing.
  - BatFastard 9y ago
    Social security is its own beast, but tapping into those funds would add about 850 billion more. So maybe a better name for it would be Guaranteed Minimum Income, that way it takes employed people out of the pool. And yes you could call it welfare. It would also replace the unemployment income system, another source of expenses.
  - BatFastard 9y ago
    The tapered income tax idea has value. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/30/15712160/basic-income-oecd-aei-replace-welfare-state https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/30/15712160/b...