6 ms·

"a quora member answered when asked about the UBI" And at that moment, any semblence of legitimacy disappeared... The main question about UBI is who pays for

"a quora member answered when asked about the UBI" And at that moment, any semblence of legitimacy disappeared... The main question about UBI is who pays for it and how. In the UK, a back-of-a-napkin calculation showed that all current benefits equally divided into a single BI would be around £4K, way below anything that most people would consider enough to live on.

bryanlarsen 8y ago
So to get a BI of £12K, average taxes would have to go up by £8K per person. And since about 2/3 of the adult population are taxpayers, that gives £12K per taxpayer, which balances the payout they'd receive from BI. People with above average incomes would pay into BI, and those with below average incomes would net from BI.
- trothamel 8y ago
  Assuming we're talking about the UK here, that would require £517,000,000,000 - or about 70% of current tax revenues.
  - lvh 8y ago
    Yep; though the usual corollary is also that you'd cancel a bunch of other welfare programs -- that is: you're replacing benefits with UBI, not just tacking UBI on. (Not advocating for it; just saying that 70% of tax revenues makes it sound like you'd nearly double taxes to cover UBI, and that's not quite true.)
  - Retric 8y ago
    Assuming zero other changes to the tax code or spending which as far as I know nobody wants to do. The US example is usually to remove Social Security, food stamps, HUD, unemployment insurance, low income tax breaks, etc which means close to zero net cost but a massive shift in benefits. Overall I think the driver for UBI is more about complexity than welfare. For example without changing revenue you could eliminate the need for tax prep. However H&R block for example really loves their billions per year in waste. So in many way's that's the context UBI should be judged not just it's direct impacts.
  - bryanlarsen 8y ago
    That number is fairly meaningless though, since a majority[1] of people will be receive more money from BI than they'll lose in the increased taxes. Only the very rich will see significant real increases. 1: the average income is significantly higher than the median income.
    - trothamel 8y ago
      Well, I think it's quite meaningful - it's the amount of money the government would have to raise to pay for this, compared to what they raise now. I bring it up because the revenue side seems like the harder half of the basic income equation, and the one that's more neglected. It looks like the highest marginal tax rate in the UK is 45%. You could raise that higher, of course - but it's not clear how much, and if doing so would actually raise revenues - where the UK is on the Laffer curve. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve (Clearly, if you raised it to 100%, it would lower revenue - you can't tax the rich if you don't have rich people anymore. And if you're at 45%, how much higher can you go?)
- dev_dull 8y ago
  In other words, legally redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor. Not saying there’s anything wrong with that, but that’s what this program is.
  - privacypoller 8y ago
    That's absolutely what it is at the core. The problem with it's application has been proven over and over again; the very wealthy have the means and motivation to avoid it while the burden falls on the same segment of the population over and over again.
    - magduf 8y ago
      The solution is simple: legislate so the very wealthy can't avoid it, while remaining in the country. It's really not that hard: if they have assets here and reside here, then you tax them, and seize them if necessary. The only reason this isn't done is because too many people vote for politicians who pass laws favorable to the very wealthy.
      - dev_dull 8y ago
        You don't think they've tried to "legislate" it so people can't avoid it? It involves guns and prisons.
        marcosdumay 8y ago
        No, I don't think that. The one thing governments don't try is to homogeneously tax rich people. I do think governments all over the world work hard to find some way to tax their foes and let their friend pay a pittance. At the same time, they don't care any bit about the people with just barely a surplus, that end up collectively paying most of it.
      - xienze 8y ago
        > The solution is simple: legislate so the very wealthy can't avoid it, while remaining in the country. ... then they'll leave the country. I don't think you've thought this through.
- setr 8y ago
  I thought BI was equal distribution across the population; how can you charge less than its value per person, and pay it off?
  - corin_ 8y ago
    Some of the population would pay more towards BI in taxes than the amount they receive as BI (just as some of the population gets taxes more than they receive social benefits currently).
  - bryanlarsen 8y ago
    By cancelling current benefits programs, which the OP calculated at 4K per person.
ahoy 8y ago
We should tax the rich more then.
magduf 8y ago
>In the UK, a back-of-a-napkin calculation showed that all current benefits equally divided into a single BI would be around £4K, Does that back-of-a-napkin calculation include the savings you'd get by shutting down most of the government bureaucracy involved in administration of current benefits and not paying salaries to all those government workers? In any country, a huge amount of the money spent on benefits are used just for administration. With UBI, you can get rid of all those workers and use the money for UBI instead.
- gph 8y ago
  >a huge amount of the money spent on benefits are used just for administration. I think a lot of people way overestimate the administrative costs. For example U.S. Social Security administrative costs are around 6 billion a year. Sounds like a lot but it's only 0.7% of the total cost of the program[1]. Sure there's a handful of different programs all with their own costs, but it's maybe 20-50 billion a year. That's not that much considering UBI might increase spending by trillions. [1] https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/admin.html https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/admin.html
  - Spooky23 8y ago
    SSA gives away money, administers programs and adjudicates disability claims. It’s nothing, relatively speaking. The lifting for social services is at the state and county level. There’s probably 3 million people engaged in that function, depending on what you scope into it. I betcha there are 10,000 people just doing children’s services in NYC.
    - gph 8y ago
      >I betcha there are 10,000 people just doing children’s services in NYC Ok, but we aren't talking about UBI replacing CSA or really any of the local services are we? It's not like child abuse is going to disappear because everyone gets a UBI check. A lot of the state and county level social services are not going to be obsoleted because of UBI. I would think it's more of a federal/national program meant to replace federal/national social services.
russdpale 8y ago
It would be possible with a blockchain based system that included a crypto currency. No one would need to be taxed, and in fact current taxes could be dramatically lowered. How much is the data of a nation worth? For some, it could be incalculable. Not just government for and by the people, but also its data and computations.
Spooky23 8y ago
Easy. You tax wealth by printing money.

bryanlarsen 8y ago

So to get a BI of £12K, average taxes would have to go up by £8K per person. And since about 2/3 of the adult population are taxpayers, that gives £12K per taxpayer, which balances the payout they'd receive from BI. People with above average incomes would pay into BI, and those with below average incomes would net from BI.

trothamel 8y ago
Assuming we're talking about the UK here, that would require £517,000,000,000 - or about 70% of current tax revenues.
- lvh 8y ago
  Yep; though the usual corollary is also that you'd cancel a bunch of other welfare programs -- that is: you're replacing benefits with UBI, not just tacking UBI on. (Not advocating for it; just saying that 70% of tax revenues makes it sound like you'd nearly double taxes to cover UBI, and that's not quite true.)
- Retric 8y ago
  Assuming zero other changes to the tax code or spending which as far as I know nobody wants to do. The US example is usually to remove Social Security, food stamps, HUD, unemployment insurance, low income tax breaks, etc which means close to zero net cost but a massive shift in benefits. Overall I think the driver for UBI is more about complexity than welfare. For example without changing revenue you could eliminate the need for tax prep. However H&R block for example really loves their billions per year in waste. So in many way's that's the context UBI should be judged not just it's direct impacts.
- bryanlarsen 8y ago
  That number is fairly meaningless though, since a majority[1] of people will be receive more money from BI than they'll lose in the increased taxes. Only the very rich will see significant real increases. 1: the average income is significantly higher than the median income.
  - trothamel 8y ago
    Well, I think it's quite meaningful - it's the amount of money the government would have to raise to pay for this, compared to what they raise now. I bring it up because the revenue side seems like the harder half of the basic income equation, and the one that's more neglected. It looks like the highest marginal tax rate in the UK is 45%. You could raise that higher, of course - but it's not clear how much, and if doing so would actually raise revenues - where the UK is on the Laffer curve. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve (Clearly, if you raised it to 100%, it would lower revenue - you can't tax the rich if you don't have rich people anymore. And if you're at 45%, how much higher can you go?)
dev_dull 8y ago
In other words, legally redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor. Not saying there’s anything wrong with that, but that’s what this program is.
- privacypoller 8y ago
  That's absolutely what it is at the core. The problem with it's application has been proven over and over again; the very wealthy have the means and motivation to avoid it while the burden falls on the same segment of the population over and over again.
  - magduf 8y ago
    The solution is simple: legislate so the very wealthy can't avoid it, while remaining in the country. It's really not that hard: if they have assets here and reside here, then you tax them, and seize them if necessary. The only reason this isn't done is because too many people vote for politicians who pass laws favorable to the very wealthy.
    - dev_dull 8y ago
      You don't think they've tried to "legislate" it so people can't avoid it? It involves guns and prisons.
      - marcosdumay 8y ago
        No, I don't think that. The one thing governments don't try is to homogeneously tax rich people. I do think governments all over the world work hard to find some way to tax their foes and let their friend pay a pittance. At the same time, they don't care any bit about the people with just barely a surplus, that end up collectively paying most of it.
    - xienze 8y ago
      > The solution is simple: legislate so the very wealthy can't avoid it, while remaining in the country. ... then they'll leave the country. I don't think you've thought this through.
setr 8y ago
I thought BI was equal distribution across the population; how can you charge less than its value per person, and pay it off?
- corin_ 8y ago
  Some of the population would pay more towards BI in taxes than the amount they receive as BI (just as some of the population gets taxes more than they receive social benefits currently).
- bryanlarsen 8y ago
  By cancelling current benefits programs, which the OP calculated at 4K per person.

ahoy 8y ago

We should tax the rich more then.

magduf 8y ago

>In the UK, a back-of-a-napkin calculation showed that all current benefits equally divided into a single BI would be around £4K, Does that back-of-a-napkin calculation include the savings you'd get by shutting down most of the government bureaucracy involved in administration of current benefits and not paying salaries to all those government workers? In any country, a huge amount of the money spent on benefits are used just for administration. With UBI, you can get rid of all those workers and use the money for UBI instead.

gph 8y ago
>a huge amount of the money spent on benefits are used just for administration. I think a lot of people way overestimate the administrative costs. For example U.S. Social Security administrative costs are around 6 billion a year. Sounds like a lot but it's only 0.7% of the total cost of the program[1]. Sure there's a handful of different programs all with their own costs, but it's maybe 20-50 billion a year. That's not that much considering UBI might increase spending by trillions. [1] https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/admin.html https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/admin.html
- Spooky23 8y ago
  SSA gives away money, administers programs and adjudicates disability claims. It’s nothing, relatively speaking. The lifting for social services is at the state and county level. There’s probably 3 million people engaged in that function, depending on what you scope into it. I betcha there are 10,000 people just doing children’s services in NYC.
  - gph 8y ago
    >I betcha there are 10,000 people just doing children’s services in NYC Ok, but we aren't talking about UBI replacing CSA or really any of the local services are we? It's not like child abuse is going to disappear because everyone gets a UBI check. A lot of the state and county level social services are not going to be obsoleted because of UBI. I would think it's more of a federal/national program meant to replace federal/national social services.

russdpale 8y ago

It would be possible with a blockchain based system that included a crypto currency. No one would need to be taxed, and in fact current taxes could be dramatically lowered. How much is the data of a nation worth? For some, it could be incalculable. Not just government for and by the people, but also its data and computations.

Spooky23 8y ago

Easy. You tax wealth by printing money.