9 ms·

The math doesn't work and has never worked. UBI proponents will never talk math because it doesn't add up, even with the most casual analysis. $12k is the cit

The math doesn't work and has never worked. UBI proponents will never talk math because it doesn't add up, even with the most casual analysis. $12k is the cited number that you see a lot in basic income discussions. That's just over the poverty level. That's not enough to live on and it's practically a bonus for some members of this site. It's not enough to do anything with. Even upon receiving that, many people would still work massive hours to obtain the best house on the block. But just to do that in the US you are talking about 3 trillion dollars (300 million x $10k for easy math) that you have to find in the budget. As you stated, that IS the entire budget. Now basic income advocates will say you can make up some if not most of that by cutting welfare programs, but given the nature of welfare programs - good luck. That UBI stipend is also not enough to pay for healthcare, so you can't cut that. How exactly do you convince a nation which already isn't willing to pay for healthcare to pay for basic income, too? I'd love to be wrong, but I've never seen any numbers that are workable, especially in a political climate anything like today. There could be a complete paradigm shift in the future, where machines literally take care of all needs in an automated way, but that's such a strange reality that welfare reform is honestly about the last problem we'd need to discuss.

drb91 9y ago
I mean, tax the hell out of wealth. The math has never been the problem; it's always been taxing the wealthy that causes the conversation to die.
- stcredzero 9y ago
  The math has never been the problem; it's always been taxing the wealthy that causes the conversation to die. The problem with taxing the wealthy, is that they generally have an outsized share of the political power. I think that a better solution, from a political and psychological standpoint, would involve a voluntary system. If just rent could be covered, this would be the equivalent of $12k per year in many parts of the US: http://www.elledecor.com/life-culture/news/a7635/german-village-with-88-cent-rent/ http://www.elledecor.com/life-culture/news/a7635/german-vill...
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    >The problem with taxing the wealthy, is that they generally have an outsized share of the political power. I think that a better solution, from a political and psychological standpoint, would involve a voluntary system. If just rent could be covered, this would be the equivalent of $12k per year in many parts of the US: By voluntary system you mean the wealthy voluntarily turning over the wealth that they won't let us tax them for? It doesn't make sense.
    - stcredzero 9y ago
      By voluntary system you mean the wealthy voluntarily turning over the wealth that they won't let us tax them for? It doesn't make sense. Many other cultures have a gift economy, where the powerful voluntarily redistribute their wealth in exchange for status. Culture is very powerful, often overpowering pure economics. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have already pledged huge fractions of their wealth towards the common good. On the other hand, the historical record on politically forcing the wealthy to hand over their wealth also supports the notion of voluntarism. It's the society and culture which are the overarching influences. If we changed the culture such that trusts supporting intentional communities were the way the wealthy could have a meaningful impact and legacy, then we could conceivably house over half of the US in virtually free housing. Arguably, living, thriving creative communities would be far more meaningful than plaques in a museum, park benches, and buildings on a college campus. (Colleges are over-funded and in a bubble as it is.)
      - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
        Yeah but there's no solution in your post. Culture can be powerful but we don't exist in the culture you want and I don't see a good way to get there. Hand waving about voluntarism and a culture shift isn't going to fix anything. Tax the shit out of the rich and make them pay for it.
        stcredzero 9y ago
        Culture can be powerful but we don't exist in the culture you want and I don't see a good way to get there. We used to exist in a culture where women had no options outside of the home and black people were slaves. Hand waving about voluntarism and a culture shift isn't going to fix anything. Tax the shit out of the rich and make them pay for it. In order to tax the rich heavily, you still need a culture shift here in the US. Wherever such taxation works, there is already a thread of communal culture. In order to achieve the same in the US, you need a cultural shift, and not setting up to do that work and simply saying "tax the shit out of the rich" is the hand waving. You're using a slogan that exploits resentment, not setting up for real change.
- creaghpatr 9y ago
  I might take Sam Altman seriously when I discover exactly how much of his own wealth he is willing to dilute to accomplish this dream.
- nightski 9y ago
  Honestly if you are going to give me free money + tax the hell out of me for working hard and going above and beyond I'll just relax and play video games and work on personal projects on my monthly stipend.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - sjg007 9y ago
    Ok but your personal project could be a new video game that nets you millions. That’s the whole point of UBI.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - heynonynony 9y ago
      "nets you millions" probably not if "tax the hell out of wealth" ... right?
      - themacguffinman 9y ago
        If you earn $10MM and you get taxed 80%, you've still netted millions.
        nightski 9y ago
        Right but your costs are not reduced by a similar amount. When I purchase things or take out a loan for a personal expense I have to pay that off with post-tax dollars. So I have to earn more money to buy the same things. In this regard a large tax greatly reduces purchasing power and makes it less worth the trouble.
- tc313 9y ago
  >I mean, tax the hell out of wealth. Easy to say when it's not your wealth being taxed.
- heynonynony 9y ago
  if everything you do that yields wealth gets taxed to death, then pretty much no one will do anything that will generate wealth just to give it away to everyone else... it's a zero sum game that only idiots will play.
kim_waxkoz 9y ago
lmao the nation is more than ready for universal healthcare as proved by polls over and over again-- its the politicians and their corporate interests that are not ready. please get more informed. im doubting you are even american based on how uninformed you are.
dougmany 9y ago
>One of the things that people forget is that if the robots really do come, yes, they will eliminate or change a lot of jobs, but the cost of goods and services will just go down and down and down. So maybe $7000 can get you everything you need, including healthcare. People pay extra money for their house to be close to work. With no work, maybe that will open up places people will want to live.
- geodel 9y ago
  India had tax rate of up to 93% in 1970s which was done all to support poor people. I am not sure it worked very well. But may be US is very different and 90% or so tax rate will drastically improve living conditions for everyone.
  - jedmeyers 9y ago
    > 90% or so tax rate will drastically improve living conditions for everyone. As a person who was born in the USSR those kind of proclamations always amuse me. I am wondering how much taxes are being paid by those people thinking that 90% tax rate will not create a feedback loop that will drastically worsen living conditions for everyone. My personal ancodote is that when I check it turns out those people rarely pay any taxes at all.
    - geodel 9y ago
      Exactly right. At least from Indian experiment it did not happen. That's why I said 'may be' in sense that may be rules of human nature does not apply to USA.
    - comicjk 9y ago
      I think the remark you're replying to was in jest or sarcastic.
  - mcguire 9y ago
    During the 50s and 60s, the highest US tax bracket was over 90%. http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates
js8 9y ago
Maybe it doesn't add up in the monetary sense, but economically it kinda does. If you look around, the actual resources are there. I was born in socialist country (Czechoslovakia) in the late 70s. It was inefficient system (the productivity of the most advanced economies today is about 3-4x times higher), and yet it was able to provide housing, food, health care, education and even decent culture for more than 90% of the population. And all this for about 30 hours of real work week. So think about it, why is that? I think the social inequality is much larger than people are willing to admit, and much larger portion of it are mostly nonsensical expenses (rents, unneeded business travel, status displays..) due to requirements to maintain the social inequality.
- dahdum 9y ago
  Czechoslovakia was a communist country, and while it did pretty well relative to others, I'm not sure it's a great model for UBI under capitalism.
  - js8 9y ago
    My point wasn't for people to copy the model, it would be a terrible idea. My point was, any typical Western country can provide all basic necessities (actually lot more, 70s lifestyle in CS wasn't just basic) for its population (an excellent basic income) with maybe 30% GDP (because of the higher productivity) and 80% employment tops (more likely somewhat less). Surely, you can do better than Czechoslovakia in the 70s! So how come we can't find the money, if the resources (energy, labor, materials) are all there? And if 30% GDP is spent on basic income, the remaining 70% can be subject to the capitalist competition. (That's my understanding of the UBI - we basically put aside a portion of GDP that we are not going to compete about in capitalism. It keeps the profit motive going but the poor people aren't starving or forced to work for non-livable wages.) Economists just sometimes focus too much on money and lose sight of the real thing.
Suncho 9y ago
> The math doesn't work and has never worked. UBI proponents will never talk math because it doesn't add up, even with the most casual analysis. I'm happy to discuss the math with you any day of the week. One of the biggest misconceptions that many people have is that the basic income (or any government funding) must somehow be funded through taxes. That's not how money works. There's a limit to the amount of government spending that the economy can productively absorb and that amount has very little, if anything to do with the amount of tax revenue that the government collects. > But just to do that in the US you are talking about 3 trillion dollars (300 million x $10k for easy math) that you have to find in the budget. If you try to do this using conventional budget math, you're not going to get the right answer. > Now basic income advocates will say you can make up some if not most of that by cutting welfare programs No. This is a terrible idea and it's due to the same misconception. I agree with you that most basic income advocates don't understand the underlying economics. But the underlying economics are nevertheless sound. > How exactly do you convince a nation which already isn't willing to pay for healthcare to pay for basic income, too? Yup. Politically, it would be very difficult to accomplish. That's why we have to do it ourselves. > I'd love to be wrong, but I've never seen any numbers that are workable, especially in a political climate anything like today. If you're interested in digging deeper on how this could work, I'm working on an economics paper that describes the economics of a basic income. Here's an abstract: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9KDLUTAOkduOXdNQWl3REw4eWc/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9KDLUTAOkduOXdNQWl3REw4eWc... Email me if you're curious about reading the full thing. > There could be a complete paradigm shift in the future, where machines literally take care of all needs in an automated way, but that's such a strange reality that welfare reform is honestly about the last problem we'd need to discuss. We've been undergoing this paradigm shift for centuries. It won't reach its full potential without a basic income to allow people to take full advantage of the wealth we're already capable of producing.
- rev_bird 9y ago
  >If you try to do this using conventional budget math, you're not going to get the right answer. I'm very curious about this part, particularly in light of your comment elsewhere that "It's possible to implement basic income without any direct government support." I feel like there are very interesting answers being alluded to in your posts but none actually presented.
MadcapJake 9y ago
> Even upon receiving that, many people would still work massive hours to obtain the best house on the block. I'm no UBI expert, but I don't think you understand the point of UBI: universal basic income. I would argue (again no expert here) it's more about constant economic injection, providing a baseline to reduce risk of entrepreneurship and generally providing a higher quality of life to the 99%'ers. As far as paying for it or finding the right way to make it happen in the US, I agree that there are a ton of roadblocks. Right now welfare is at $1.3 trillion, let's say that was increased to $2 trillion; divide by 300 million Americans and you've got over $6,500 per American per year. Just over half of what you stated is the typical amount discussed. That being said, I could certainly find a good use for an extra $500+ a month in income. > How exactly do you convince a nation which already isn't willing to pay for healthcare to pay for basic income, too? I think it's the politicians and the news media that twists this, Americans in polls generally do support single-payer health care and I would posit this same sentiment would be shared for basic income (if not more support since it's quite a bit easier to understand)
- pault 9y ago
  Sure, but you are advocating redistribution of wealth from the most impoverished segment of the population to the middle and upper classes. I’m not sure how helpful that would be. I mean, I would love to buy more toys every month but is that worth taking away someone else’s food stamps and healthcare?
  - Dylan16807 9y ago
    I assure you that the upper classes will have their taxes increase by more than the UBI amount.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> $12k is the cited number that you see a lot in basic income discussions. That's just over the poverty level. Hitting FPL is a good minimum for considering a UBI scheme “mature”, but 100% of the single-person-household FPL per capita is probably not the right starting point. If you target hitting 30% of the FPL in a two-person household—$2500/person-year—you’ll beat most state’s TANF benefits, which seems a good starting point; if you tie it to a funding stream that grows with the economy, you progressively improve the coverage letting you scale back and decommission existing benefit programs. > Even upon receiving that, many people would still work massive hours to obtain the best house on the block. As long as people can find work, people working on top of even a mature UBI is central to it's point, and the big reason it is unconditional is to encourage this.
nkoren 9y ago
> The math doesn't work and has never worked. UBI proponents will never talk math because it doesn't add up, even with the most casual analysis. Wrong, utterly wrong, on accounts. > It's not enough to do anything with. You have no idea what it's like to be poor. I grew up poor in America. $12k per year is an absolutely life-changing amount for many people. It means you will not go hungry. It means you will not die of exposure. It gives you bargaining power at work: it means there are degradations you will not subject yourself to in order to earn more money. > Even upon receiving that, many people would still work massive hours to obtain the best house on the block. Yes, that's fine. UBI is not supposed to replace work. > But just to do that in the US you are talking about 3 trillion dollars (300 million x $10k for easy math) that you have to find in the budget. As you stated, that IS the entire budget. I'm sorry, I'm going to swear... please don't take this personally, but I've been talking hard numbers about UBI for years, and it's the anti-UBI people who can't do the fucking math. Here's a math problem: You give me $1 and I give $1. How much did that cost you? NOTHING. -$1 + $1 = $0. That's how math works. Are you with me so far? Good, thank you, please stay with me. The trick with Universal Basic Income is that it Universal. It is paid to everyone. That means everyone is both a contributor to it and a recipient of it. You can't add up the cost without also adding the benefit. Because it is a straightforward cash transfer, the National cost plus the total benefit would be zero. But of course what people are really interested in is how much it would cost them. The per capita Gross National Income is $58,000. To extract $12,000 from that $58,000 would require a 20% tax rate. However, the person making $58,000 would also receive $12,000 per year in UBI. So they would pay $12k and receive $12k, making the total cost to them ZERO. That is how math works. Of course the person earning earning $100k will also have to pay 20%, and they of course they would also receive $12,000 -- putting them -$20k + $12k = $8k out of pocket. So for everyone earning $100k, the cost of UBI is 8% of their net income. Actually -- because about a quarter of UBI could replace existing benefits programs, the tax increase would be closer to 8% * 75% = 6%. So while it would notionally require a 20% tax increase (or 15%, if you account for the savings it would create), for the vast majority of Americans it would cost nothing, and for no American would it cast more than 20%. Here is how it would break down: Income pre-UBI | Income post-UBI | cost/benefit | Tax increase | % of Americans at or below [1] ---------------|-----------------|--------------|--------------|--------------- $0 | $12,000 | + $12,000 | N/A | $20,000 | $28,000 | + $8,000 | N/A | 35% $40,000 | $44,000 | + $4,000 | N/A | 61% $60,000 | $60,000 | N/A | N/A | 77% $80,000 | $76,000 | - $4,000 | 5% (4%) | 86% $100,000 | $92,000 | - $8,000 | 8% (6%) | 91% $120,000 | $108,000 | - $12,000 | 10% (7.5%) | 93% (?) And those are the hard numbers. To support a national income UBI of $12,000 via a simple, equitable flat-tax, this is what it would take. 77% of Americans would pay nothing and would in fact be net beneficiaries. 9% of Americans would pay up to 4% in additional taxes. 5% of Americans would pay up to 6% in additional taxes. 3% of Americans would pay up to 7.5% in additional taxes, and so forth. A very very small number of billionaires would see an effective tax increase of 20%. THAT is how you finance a UBI. It's easy math. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_...
tom_mellior 9y ago
> $12k is the cited number that you see a lot in basic income discussions. That's just over the poverty level. That's not enough to live on "just over the poverty level" is pretty much the definition of "enough to live on". If it isn't, the poverty level is set wrong. Anyway, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_... 22.77% of the people in the US age 15+ (12.5 million persons) had an annual income of $12.5k or less.

drb91 9y ago

I mean, tax the hell out of wealth. The math has never been the problem; it's always been taxing the wealthy that causes the conversation to die.

stcredzero 9y ago
The math has never been the problem; it's always been taxing the wealthy that causes the conversation to die. The problem with taxing the wealthy, is that they generally have an outsized share of the political power. I think that a better solution, from a political and psychological standpoint, would involve a voluntary system. If just rent could be covered, this would be the equivalent of $12k per year in many parts of the US: http://www.elledecor.com/life-culture/news/a7635/german-village-with-88-cent-rent/ http://www.elledecor.com/life-culture/news/a7635/german-vill...
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  >The problem with taxing the wealthy, is that they generally have an outsized share of the political power. I think that a better solution, from a political and psychological standpoint, would involve a voluntary system. If just rent could be covered, this would be the equivalent of $12k per year in many parts of the US: By voluntary system you mean the wealthy voluntarily turning over the wealth that they won't let us tax them for? It doesn't make sense.
  - stcredzero 9y ago
    By voluntary system you mean the wealthy voluntarily turning over the wealth that they won't let us tax them for? It doesn't make sense. Many other cultures have a gift economy, where the powerful voluntarily redistribute their wealth in exchange for status. Culture is very powerful, often overpowering pure economics. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have already pledged huge fractions of their wealth towards the common good. On the other hand, the historical record on politically forcing the wealthy to hand over their wealth also supports the notion of voluntarism. It's the society and culture which are the overarching influences. If we changed the culture such that trusts supporting intentional communities were the way the wealthy could have a meaningful impact and legacy, then we could conceivably house over half of the US in virtually free housing. Arguably, living, thriving creative communities would be far more meaningful than plaques in a museum, park benches, and buildings on a college campus. (Colleges are over-funded and in a bubble as it is.)
    - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
      Yeah but there's no solution in your post. Culture can be powerful but we don't exist in the culture you want and I don't see a good way to get there. Hand waving about voluntarism and a culture shift isn't going to fix anything. Tax the shit out of the rich and make them pay for it.
      - stcredzero 9y ago
        Culture can be powerful but we don't exist in the culture you want and I don't see a good way to get there. We used to exist in a culture where women had no options outside of the home and black people were slaves. Hand waving about voluntarism and a culture shift isn't going to fix anything. Tax the shit out of the rich and make them pay for it. In order to tax the rich heavily, you still need a culture shift here in the US. Wherever such taxation works, there is already a thread of communal culture. In order to achieve the same in the US, you need a cultural shift, and not setting up to do that work and simply saying "tax the shit out of the rich" is the hand waving. You're using a slogan that exploits resentment, not setting up for real change.
creaghpatr 9y ago
I might take Sam Altman seriously when I discover exactly how much of his own wealth he is willing to dilute to accomplish this dream.
nightski 9y ago
Honestly if you are going to give me free money + tax the hell out of me for working hard and going above and beyond I'll just relax and play video games and work on personal projects on my monthly stipend.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- sjg007 9y ago
  Ok but your personal project could be a new video game that nets you millions. That’s the whole point of UBI.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - heynonynony 9y ago
    "nets you millions" probably not if "tax the hell out of wealth" ... right?
    - themacguffinman 9y ago
      If you earn $10MM and you get taxed 80%, you've still netted millions.
      - nightski 9y ago
        Right but your costs are not reduced by a similar amount. When I purchase things or take out a loan for a personal expense I have to pay that off with post-tax dollars. So I have to earn more money to buy the same things. In this regard a large tax greatly reduces purchasing power and makes it less worth the trouble.
tc313 9y ago
>I mean, tax the hell out of wealth. Easy to say when it's not your wealth being taxed.
heynonynony 9y ago
if everything you do that yields wealth gets taxed to death, then pretty much no one will do anything that will generate wealth just to give it away to everyone else... it's a zero sum game that only idiots will play.

kim_waxkoz 9y ago

lmao the nation is more than ready for universal healthcare as proved by polls over and over again-- its the politicians and their corporate interests that are not ready. please get more informed. im doubting you are even american based on how uninformed you are.

dougmany 9y ago

>One of the things that people forget is that if the robots really do come, yes, they will eliminate or change a lot of jobs, but the cost of goods and services will just go down and down and down. So maybe $7000 can get you everything you need, including healthcare. People pay extra money for their house to be close to work. With no work, maybe that will open up places people will want to live.

geodel 9y ago
India had tax rate of up to 93% in 1970s which was done all to support poor people. I am not sure it worked very well. But may be US is very different and 90% or so tax rate will drastically improve living conditions for everyone.
- jedmeyers 9y ago
  > 90% or so tax rate will drastically improve living conditions for everyone. As a person who was born in the USSR those kind of proclamations always amuse me. I am wondering how much taxes are being paid by those people thinking that 90% tax rate will not create a feedback loop that will drastically worsen living conditions for everyone. My personal ancodote is that when I check it turns out those people rarely pay any taxes at all.
  - geodel 9y ago
    Exactly right. At least from Indian experiment it did not happen. That's why I said 'may be' in sense that may be rules of human nature does not apply to USA.
  - comicjk 9y ago
    I think the remark you're replying to was in jest or sarcastic.
- mcguire 9y ago
  During the 50s and 60s, the highest US tax bracket was over 90%. http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates

js8 9y ago

Maybe it doesn't add up in the monetary sense, but economically it kinda does. If you look around, the actual resources are there. I was born in socialist country (Czechoslovakia) in the late 70s. It was inefficient system (the productivity of the most advanced economies today is about 3-4x times higher), and yet it was able to provide housing, food, health care, education and even decent culture for more than 90% of the population. And all this for about 30 hours of real work week. So think about it, why is that? I think the social inequality is much larger than people are willing to admit, and much larger portion of it are mostly nonsensical expenses (rents, unneeded business travel, status displays..) due to requirements to maintain the social inequality.

dahdum 9y ago
Czechoslovakia was a communist country, and while it did pretty well relative to others, I'm not sure it's a great model for UBI under capitalism.
- js8 9y ago
  My point wasn't for people to copy the model, it would be a terrible idea. My point was, any typical Western country can provide all basic necessities (actually lot more, 70s lifestyle in CS wasn't just basic) for its population (an excellent basic income) with maybe 30% GDP (because of the higher productivity) and 80% employment tops (more likely somewhat less). Surely, you can do better than Czechoslovakia in the 70s! So how come we can't find the money, if the resources (energy, labor, materials) are all there? And if 30% GDP is spent on basic income, the remaining 70% can be subject to the capitalist competition. (That's my understanding of the UBI - we basically put aside a portion of GDP that we are not going to compete about in capitalism. It keeps the profit motive going but the poor people aren't starving or forced to work for non-livable wages.) Economists just sometimes focus too much on money and lose sight of the real thing.

Suncho 9y ago

> The math doesn't work and has never worked. UBI proponents will never talk math because it doesn't add up, even with the most casual analysis. I'm happy to discuss the math with you any day of the week. One of the biggest misconceptions that many people have is that the basic income (or any government funding) must somehow be funded through taxes. That's not how money works. There's a limit to the amount of government spending that the economy can productively absorb and that amount has very little, if anything to do with the amount of tax revenue that the government collects. > But just to do that in the US you are talking about 3 trillion dollars (300 million x $10k for easy math) that you have to find in the budget. If you try to do this using conventional budget math, you're not going to get the right answer. > Now basic income advocates will say you can make up some if not most of that by cutting welfare programs No. This is a terrible idea and it's due to the same misconception. I agree with you that most basic income advocates don't understand the underlying economics. But the underlying economics are nevertheless sound. > How exactly do you convince a nation which already isn't willing to pay for healthcare to pay for basic income, too? Yup. Politically, it would be very difficult to accomplish. That's why we have to do it ourselves. > I'd love to be wrong, but I've never seen any numbers that are workable, especially in a political climate anything like today. If you're interested in digging deeper on how this could work, I'm working on an economics paper that describes the economics of a basic income. Here's an abstract: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9KDLUTAOkduOXdNQWl3REw4eWc/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9KDLUTAOkduOXdNQWl3REw4eWc... Email me if you're curious about reading the full thing. > There could be a complete paradigm shift in the future, where machines literally take care of all needs in an automated way, but that's such a strange reality that welfare reform is honestly about the last problem we'd need to discuss. We've been undergoing this paradigm shift for centuries. It won't reach its full potential without a basic income to allow people to take full advantage of the wealth we're already capable of producing.

rev_bird 9y ago
>If you try to do this using conventional budget math, you're not going to get the right answer. I'm very curious about this part, particularly in light of your comment elsewhere that "It's possible to implement basic income without any direct government support." I feel like there are very interesting answers being alluded to in your posts but none actually presented.

MadcapJake 9y ago

> Even upon receiving that, many people would still work massive hours to obtain the best house on the block. I'm no UBI expert, but I don't think you understand the point of UBI: universal basic income. I would argue (again no expert here) it's more about constant economic injection, providing a baseline to reduce risk of entrepreneurship and generally providing a higher quality of life to the 99%'ers. As far as paying for it or finding the right way to make it happen in the US, I agree that there are a ton of roadblocks. Right now welfare is at $1.3 trillion, let's say that was increased to $2 trillion; divide by 300 million Americans and you've got over $6,500 per American per year. Just over half of what you stated is the typical amount discussed. That being said, I could certainly find a good use for an extra $500+ a month in income. > How exactly do you convince a nation which already isn't willing to pay for healthcare to pay for basic income, too? I think it's the politicians and the news media that twists this, Americans in polls generally do support single-payer health care and I would posit this same sentiment would be shared for basic income (if not more support since it's quite a bit easier to understand)

pault 9y ago
Sure, but you are advocating redistribution of wealth from the most impoverished segment of the population to the middle and upper classes. I’m not sure how helpful that would be. I mean, I would love to buy more toys every month but is that worth taking away someone else’s food stamps and healthcare?
- Dylan16807 9y ago
  I assure you that the upper classes will have their taxes increase by more than the UBI amount.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> $12k is the cited number that you see a lot in basic income discussions. That's just over the poverty level. Hitting FPL is a good minimum for considering a UBI scheme “mature”, but 100% of the single-person-household FPL per capita is probably not the right starting point. If you target hitting 30% of the FPL in a two-person household—$2500/person-year—you’ll beat most state’s TANF benefits, which seems a good starting point; if you tie it to a funding stream that grows with the economy, you progressively improve the coverage letting you scale back and decommission existing benefit programs. > Even upon receiving that, many people would still work massive hours to obtain the best house on the block. As long as people can find work, people working on top of even a mature UBI is central to it's point, and the big reason it is unconditional is to encourage this.

nkoren 9y ago

> The math doesn't work and has never worked. UBI proponents will never talk math because it doesn't add up, even with the most casual analysis. Wrong, utterly wrong, on accounts. > It's not enough to do anything with. You have no idea what it's like to be poor. I grew up poor in America. $12k per year is an absolutely life-changing amount for many people. It means you will not go hungry. It means you will not die of exposure. It gives you bargaining power at work: it means there are degradations you will not subject yourself to in order to earn more money. > Even upon receiving that, many people would still work massive hours to obtain the best house on the block. Yes, that's fine. UBI is not supposed to replace work. > But just to do that in the US you are talking about 3 trillion dollars (300 million x $10k for easy math) that you have to find in the budget. As you stated, that IS the entire budget. I'm sorry, I'm going to swear... please don't take this personally, but I've been talking hard numbers about UBI for years, and it's the anti-UBI people who can't do the fucking math. Here's a math problem: You give me $1 and I give $1. How much did that cost you? NOTHING. -$1 + $1 = $0. That's how math works. Are you with me so far? Good, thank you, please stay with me. The trick with Universal Basic Income is that it Universal. It is paid to everyone. That means everyone is both a contributor to it and a recipient of it. You can't add up the cost without also adding the benefit. Because it is a straightforward cash transfer, the National cost plus the total benefit would be zero. But of course what people are really interested in is how much it would cost them. The per capita Gross National Income is $58,000. To extract $12,000 from that $58,000 would require a 20% tax rate. However, the person making $58,000 would also receive $12,000 per year in UBI. So they would pay $12k and receive $12k, making the total cost to them ZERO. That is how math works. Of course the person earning earning $100k will also have to pay 20%, and they of course they would also receive $12,000 -- putting them -$20k + $12k = $8k out of pocket. So for everyone earning $100k, the cost of UBI is 8% of their net income. Actually -- because about a quarter of UBI could replace existing benefits programs, the tax increase would be closer to 8% * 75% = 6%. So while it would notionally require a 20% tax increase (or 15%, if you account for the savings it would create), for the vast majority of Americans it would cost nothing, and for no American would it cast more than 20%. Here is how it would break down: Income pre-UBI | Income post-UBI | cost/benefit | Tax increase | % of Americans at or below [1] ---------------|-----------------|--------------|--------------|--------------- $0 | $12,000 | + $12,000 | N/A | $20,000 | $28,000 | + $8,000 | N/A | 35% $40,000 | $44,000 | + $4,000 | N/A | 61% $60,000 | $60,000 | N/A | N/A | 77% $80,000 | $76,000 | - $4,000 | 5% (4%) | 86% $100,000 | $92,000 | - $8,000 | 8% (6%) | 91% $120,000 | $108,000 | - $12,000 | 10% (7.5%) | 93% (?) And those are the hard numbers. To support a national income UBI of $12,000 via a simple, equitable flat-tax, this is what it would take. 77% of Americans would pay nothing and would in fact be net beneficiaries. 9% of Americans would pay up to 4% in additional taxes. 5% of Americans would pay up to 6% in additional taxes. 3% of Americans would pay up to 7.5% in additional taxes, and so forth. A very very small number of billionaires would see an effective tax increase of 20%. THAT is how you finance a UBI. It's easy math. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_...

tom_mellior 9y ago

> $12k is the cited number that you see a lot in basic income discussions. That's just over the poverty level. That's not enough to live on "just over the poverty level" is pretty much the definition of "enough to live on". If it isn't, the poverty level is set wrong. Anyway, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_... 22.77% of the people in the US age 15+ (12.5 million persons) had an annual income of $12.5k or less.