4 ms·

How many under 18s in that 325m? UBI would be for those of working age would it not? I've seen arguments UBI should include pensioners, but never for it to in

How many under 18s in that 325m? UBI would be for those of working age would it not? I've seen arguments UBI should include pensioners, but never for it to include minors.

hueving 8y ago
About 24% under 18. Dropping them doesn't even begin to address the massive shortfall.
- jimnotgym 8y ago
  Surely it addresses 24% of the shortfall? That is nearly a quarter in one answer. You are making it look much more achievable.
  - hueving 8y ago
    A quarter is irrelevant when we are talking orders of magnitude compared to current social programs.
zeth___ 8y ago
So if you only include 15-64 that is 200m [0] But since you want to keep social security, medicaid and medicare you need to keep a budget that somehow has 2 trillion dollars for BUI and 2 trillion for pensioners and children. Not much of an improvement really. Which is my main issue with everyone who proposes UBI. Once they are shown the number you get by multiplying population by income they slowly start to reinvent the welfare state that somehow is so terrible it needs to be replaced with UBI. As someone once said: Crypto-currencies are gods way of teaching libertarians why regulations exist in the financial sector. I would like to rephrase that: UBI is gods way of teaching libertarians why the welfare state was created. [0] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LFWA64TTUSM647S https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LFWA64TTUSM647S
- throwawayj90 8y ago
  It’s not as simple as “just multiplying”, though.. You don’t just give everyone $X dollars. If you make $100,000 per year, you don’t get anything. But if you make below a certain amount, say $10,000, then you pay a negative income tax, which means you get some money. Also I don’t know which version of libertarian you’re using, but I don’t think I’d classify libertarians as being super supportive of UBI...
gaius 8y ago
I've seen arguments UBI should include pensioners, but never for it to include minors It has to include pensioners. To make it work you need to take the cost of the bureaucracy out of the system, which means UBI supersedes all other welfare. There will be no pensions, no unemployment, no child benefits (children also get UBI, paid to their parents until they come of age), no means testing - everyone gets UBI, full stop. That's what the U is for!
- jimnotgym 8y ago
  It has been suggested that minors could get a reduced level of UBI to recognise that they are have less basic need. However it should certainly be high enough to get rid of child benefits. Interestingly until recently Children in the UK got UBI in the form of family allowance (paid to the parents). x for first born, y for subsequent or something. The sweeping government cuts lead to it becoming means-tested and complicated. One Conservative (sorry cannot find the quote) remarked that they spent theirs on Champangne, which caused horror in the press, but is money flowing into the economy at least...unlike tax benefits to land-owners

How many under 18s in that 325m? UBI would be for those of working age would it not? I've seen arguments UBI should include pensioners, but never for it to include minors.

hueving 8y ago

About 24% under 18. Dropping them doesn't even begin to address the massive shortfall.

jimnotgym 8y ago
Surely it addresses 24% of the shortfall? That is nearly a quarter in one answer. You are making it look much more achievable.
- hueving 8y ago
  A quarter is irrelevant when we are talking orders of magnitude compared to current social programs.

zeth___ 8y ago

So if you only include 15-64 that is 200m [0] But since you want to keep social security, medicaid and medicare you need to keep a budget that somehow has 2 trillion dollars for BUI and 2 trillion for pensioners and children. Not much of an improvement really. Which is my main issue with everyone who proposes UBI. Once they are shown the number you get by multiplying population by income they slowly start to reinvent the welfare state that somehow is so terrible it needs to be replaced with UBI. As someone once said: Crypto-currencies are gods way of teaching libertarians why regulations exist in the financial sector. I would like to rephrase that: UBI is gods way of teaching libertarians why the welfare state was created. [0] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LFWA64TTUSM647S https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LFWA64TTUSM647S

throwawayj90 8y ago
It’s not as simple as “just multiplying”, though.. You don’t just give everyone $X dollars. If you make $100,000 per year, you don’t get anything. But if you make below a certain amount, say $10,000, then you pay a negative income tax, which means you get some money. Also I don’t know which version of libertarian you’re using, but I don’t think I’d classify libertarians as being super supportive of UBI...

gaius 8y ago

I've seen arguments UBI should include pensioners, but never for it to include minors It has to include pensioners. To make it work you need to take the cost of the bureaucracy out of the system, which means UBI supersedes all other welfare. There will be no pensions, no unemployment, no child benefits (children also get UBI, paid to their parents until they come of age), no means testing - everyone gets UBI, full stop. That's what the U is for!

jimnotgym 8y ago
It has been suggested that minors could get a reduced level of UBI to recognise that they are have less basic need. However it should certainly be high enough to get rid of child benefits. Interestingly until recently Children in the UK got UBI in the form of family allowance (paid to the parents). x for first born, y for subsequent or something. The sweeping government cuts lead to it becoming means-tested and complicated. One Conservative (sorry cannot find the quote) remarked that they spent theirs on Champangne, which caused horror in the press, but is money flowing into the economy at least...unlike tax benefits to land-owners