4 ms·

The total US tax revenue in 2017 was $3.422 trillion. If you split that evenly among 300 million people, each would get $11,000, which is half of the poverty l

The total US tax revenue in 2017 was $3.422 trillion. If you split that evenly among 300 million people, each would get $11,000, which is half of the poverty line of $22,000. Even if you thought that little money was acceptable, to afford it you'd have to cut: 1. all military programs 2. all existing social security programs 3. all government infrastructure projects 4. all education programs 5. ...

rootusrootus 8y ago
Well, yes, it would require significantly increasing tax revenue to pay for it.
- trendia 8y ago
  To get everyone up to the poverty line and not have to cut government projects, you'd have to triple tax revenue. Since the average tax burden for those making $500k+ is around 30% already, that would effectively mean taxing them at 90%. I don't think it's politically feasible.
  - rootusrootus 8y ago
    I know enough to know that I don't know nearly enough about economics to say if it's fiscally feasible, my gut says probably so but I can't imagine how such a thing would even be modeled. I 100% agree it is not politically feasible. Even the poor folks in America think that employment is a moral issue and being poor is a reflection on your value to society. I benefit from lack of competition in my field leading to significantly higher-than-average compensation, but I have to say that I'm intrigued by the idea of giving everyone the freedom to find something to do which meets their aptitude rather than wasting what might be a lot of really smart, capable people, or artists, etc, who have to piss away precious hours of their possibly productive time flipping burgers or something else equally valueless. It may not fit well into our current "meritocracy" ideal but I wonder if we wouldn't build a much better world if we upended our existing incentives a bit. Enough money for everyone to survive (with roommates and such) but little enough that there remains an incentive to go earn more.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    What should the tax rate be on a robot? If the tax rate is too high, then people won't replace jobs with robots. That's a negative feedback on the behavior we're worried about, so that's not a bad thing.
  - sp332 8y ago
    You're only looking at personal income taxes. Payroll taxes account for about 2/3 as much government revenue and are currently one of the most regressive tax types. Removing the limits on maximum taxable earnings could bring in a lot more money. And the other side of this is to try to bring down costs. Hopefully a basic income will encourage more regular doctor visits and fewer expensive emergencies. We should also be able to reduce some kinds of welfare spending if food and rent are being paid from the new basic income. And there are already plans underway to increase availability of cheaper housing.
pentae 8y ago
It still amazes me that so many people don't get this.
petermcneeley 8y ago
Is this an honest reply? The middle sees no real change in total income, the only the extremes see changes in total income.
- trendia 8y ago
  My post is describing why minimum income would not result in everyone getting $50,000 a year.
  - petermcneeley 8y ago
    Not that I would advocate for such extreme lack of incentives but US gdp per cap is over 50k. Doesnt this mean that you could in theory give everyone 50k?
    - blablabla007 8y ago
      Government nationalizing everything? I hear it is working really well in North Korea.
RobertoG 8y ago
Another data point: GDP per capita is around $50.000.

rootusrootus 8y ago

Well, yes, it would require significantly increasing tax revenue to pay for it.

trendia 8y ago
To get everyone up to the poverty line and not have to cut government projects, you'd have to triple tax revenue. Since the average tax burden for those making $500k+ is around 30% already, that would effectively mean taxing them at 90%. I don't think it's politically feasible.
- rootusrootus 8y ago
  I know enough to know that I don't know nearly enough about economics to say if it's fiscally feasible, my gut says probably so but I can't imagine how such a thing would even be modeled. I 100% agree it is not politically feasible. Even the poor folks in America think that employment is a moral issue and being poor is a reflection on your value to society. I benefit from lack of competition in my field leading to significantly higher-than-average compensation, but I have to say that I'm intrigued by the idea of giving everyone the freedom to find something to do which meets their aptitude rather than wasting what might be a lot of really smart, capable people, or artists, etc, who have to piss away precious hours of their possibly productive time flipping burgers or something else equally valueless. It may not fit well into our current "meritocracy" ideal but I wonder if we wouldn't build a much better world if we upended our existing incentives a bit. Enough money for everyone to survive (with roommates and such) but little enough that there remains an incentive to go earn more.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  What should the tax rate be on a robot? If the tax rate is too high, then people won't replace jobs with robots. That's a negative feedback on the behavior we're worried about, so that's not a bad thing.
- sp332 8y ago
  You're only looking at personal income taxes. Payroll taxes account for about 2/3 as much government revenue and are currently one of the most regressive tax types. Removing the limits on maximum taxable earnings could bring in a lot more money. And the other side of this is to try to bring down costs. Hopefully a basic income will encourage more regular doctor visits and fewer expensive emergencies. We should also be able to reduce some kinds of welfare spending if food and rent are being paid from the new basic income. And there are already plans underway to increase availability of cheaper housing.

pentae 8y ago

It still amazes me that so many people don't get this.

petermcneeley 8y ago

Is this an honest reply? The middle sees no real change in total income, the only the extremes see changes in total income.

trendia 8y ago
My post is describing why minimum income would not result in everyone getting $50,000 a year.
- petermcneeley 8y ago
  Not that I would advocate for such extreme lack of incentives but US gdp per cap is over 50k. Doesnt this mean that you could in theory give everyone 50k?
  - blablabla007 8y ago
    Government nationalizing everything? I hear it is working really well in North Korea.

RobertoG 8y ago

Another data point: GDP per capita is around $50.000.