3 ms·

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?)

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?)