2 ms·

> My guess is that the federal government wouldn't end up paying substantially more than it does now, although I'd like to see a study/projection on that. How

> My guess is that the federal government wouldn't end up paying substantially more than it does now, although I'd like to see a study/projection on that. How could the government maintain current welfare payments and also give UBI to everyone at the same time without a massive spending increase?

zackmorris 8y ago
Because in the long run, most forms of welfare are self-funded. For example social security and medicare are paid for by workers paying into the fund, and food stamps have an economic multiplier effect of about $1.8 dollars for ever $1 spent: https://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2016/05/23/how-is-social-security-funded.aspx https://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2016/05/23/how-is-so... https://www.medicare.gov/about-us/how-medicare-is-funded/medicare-funding.html https://www.medicare.gov/about-us/how-medicare-is-funded/med... https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/how-food-stamp-cuts-could-ripple-through-the-economy https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/how-food-stamp-cuts-coul... Also defense and national debt payments total more than welfare: https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_welfare_spending_40.html https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_welfare_spending_40.... The above can be looked at as corporate welfare for defense contractors and the independently wealthy/large institutional investors. It looks like a $12,000 per capita UBI would cost about $4 trillion per year for 325 million Americans. This is about 1/5 of US GDP and roughly equal to the current US federal budget. So UBI would cost an additional $3 trillion if we get rid of welfare, or an additional $4 trillion if we keep it. I guess I jumped the gun a little on saying it's not that substantial, although I do wonder what kind of multiplier effects a UBI would have on the economy. My guesstimate is that it would be comparable to food stamps at 1.75x and probably generate an additional $3 trillion or so. But without a full study, it's hard to say. Hope this helps!

zackmorris 8y ago

Because in the long run, most forms of welfare are self-funded. For example social security and medicare are paid for by workers paying into the fund, and food stamps have an economic multiplier effect of about $1.8 dollars for ever $1 spent: https://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2016/05/23/how-is-social-security-funded.aspx https://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2016/05/23/how-is-so... https://www.medicare.gov/about-us/how-medicare-is-funded/medicare-funding.html https://www.medicare.gov/about-us/how-medicare-is-funded/med... https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/how-food-stamp-cuts-could-ripple-through-the-economy https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/how-food-stamp-cuts-coul... Also defense and national debt payments total more than welfare: https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_welfare_spending_40.html https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_welfare_spending_40.... The above can be looked at as corporate welfare for defense contractors and the independently wealthy/large institutional investors. It looks like a $12,000 per capita UBI would cost about $4 trillion per year for 325 million Americans. This is about 1/5 of US GDP and roughly equal to the current US federal budget. So UBI would cost an additional $3 trillion if we get rid of welfare, or an additional $4 trillion if we keep it. I guess I jumped the gun a little on saying it's not that substantial, although I do wonder what kind of multiplier effects a UBI would have on the economy. My guesstimate is that it would be comparable to food stamps at 1.75x and probably generate an additional $3 trillion or so. But without a full study, it's hard to say. Hope this helps!