12 ms·

Here's my best argument for why UBI can't work in the USA. Let me know where i went wrong: My TV told me a "living wage" is at least $15 (but probably higher

by skrowl 8y ago

Here's my best argument for why UBI can't work in the USA. Let me know where i went wrong: My TV told me a "living wage" is at least $15 (but probably higher in liberal controlled areas like NYC / most CA cities / etc due to high cost of living & taxation), but we'll start with $15 to make it easy. $15/hr at 40hr/week = $31,200 per year. $31,200 * 328,300,000 population of USA = $10,242,960,000,000 Written out (for emphasis) that's TEN TRILLION TWO HUNDERD FOURTY THREE MILLION DOLLARS. That's just the handouts, not counting in any overhead / administrative costs to give out the handouts. It'll likely be more than that if you adjust it higher than $15 for people living in NYC, etc. Meanwhile, the entire GDP of the USA is less than 20 Trillion. That's the current GDP where people are incentivized to work, so it would likely go down (perhaps drastically) when people are paid to do nothing under UBI. Let me know how that adds up.

makotech222 8y ago
Lol, the people don't just keep the money. they spend it.
delinka 8y ago
I'd assume that we would eventually make that distribution as efficient as possible with automation. I'd further assume that any money you make gets channeled through this system so that you have to earn past $30K to see any more money in your account. nit: ten trillion two hundred forty two billion nine hundred sixty million and no thousands ;-) How about "over $10.2 trillion"?
- skrowl 8y ago
  Good call mate!
- bacro 8y ago
  two hundred forty TWO billion to be correct :P
  - delinka 8y ago
    fixed - I was going to correct his interpretation, but then decided to spell it all out ... I'm lame
- jacoblambda 8y ago
  The issue with your suggestion is that it dis-incentivises work which is one of the problems UBI tries to solve about welfare systems. Currently the issue is "why would I work more than X amount if that means that I make less than if I worked less than that (welfare + work)?" but with your system it becomes "If I am relatively unskilled, why would I try to work at all if that means that I will receive almost no compensation beyond what the government already gives me?". UBI is supposed to support people so that they can do the work that they believe is most valuable and to prevent people from being dis-incentivised from pursuing work. It has other goals as well such as eliminating other welfare services, removing minimum wage, and incentivising moving away from cities but those first two are the primary reasons.
  - delinka 8y ago
    That's fine. It just makes the distribution system that much more efficient - the same amount for everyone. Then we could afford a flat tax rate for everyone simplifying taxation as well.
arichard123 8y ago
A few points occur to me. It doesn't need to add up that way, as the money goes round in circles. Most people are receiving money and living based upon it in the USA already, so perhaps it's more to with changing how it flows around rather than anything else. It could be phased in slowly. I think some people like it because it could act as a replacement for so many other government "aid" schemes. Disability allowances, Housing allowances, Health spending could all be cut to zero, as we would know everyone had money to spend on what they liked. Personal responsibility all the way. Other people like the idea of money for nothing, and well, if we manage to automate everything then we might need money for nothing to keep the wheels turning.
bryanlarsen 8y ago
Under a viable UBI scheme, a typical middle class worker will see income go up by $15/hr and taxes go up by $15/hr. So the vast bulk of that $10T isn't significant.
52-6F-62 8y ago
I'm not aware of a system that just blanket gives each person ~$30k a year. In Ontario (before the new government killed it before the study could be completed), the system was going to include a progressive taxation system— essentially, the more you earn, the less you receive in UBI payments, until you are actively paying into the system. The system would have also included the end of our current welfare and disability payment systems— putting less pressure on the bureaucracy and on the people who are in need of assistance. Many people taking part in the study were using the additional help (it was actually around $23k CAD here) to start businesses and go back to school. It's a little disingenuous to just shout about totals when I don't think anybody [serious, or to be taken seriously] has proposed such a plan.
- skrowl 8y ago
  Democratic presidential hopeful Andrew Yang is proposing $1000 (regardless of what you earn) for every American over 18. https://www.yang2020.com/what-is-ubi/ https://www.yang2020.com/what-is-ubi/ Almost all of the Democrat 2020 field (that we know of so far) have come out with some kind of handouts-in-exchange-for-votes platform for their campaign https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/democrats-eyeing-2020-presidential-bids-test-simple-pitch-have-some-n948086 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/democrats-eye... It's still early, but I'd expect to see them solidify over some of these types of income redistribution strategies as we near Nov 2020.
  - 52-6F-62 8y ago
    That doesn't line up with your former figures or reasoning. It's not a good example.
gpm 8y ago
I think you could get away with a UBI which is substantially less than that. $12,000/person/year seems like it should be easily sufficient - since I live on that much excepting tuition in downtown Toronto (not cheap), in CAD (so really a lot less), just fine. Keep in mind that when you are counting per person that means you are allocating that much for people not in the workforce like children too. A 4 person household is getting $50,000/year with the above number. Expecting people who are just living on a UBI to move somewhere with a low cost of living also seems reasonable to me, I suspect you could substantially slash even the $12,000/person/year number and still have it be sufficient. I also think that a partial UBI (e.g. $3000/year) would likely be nearly as beneficial as a full one, but it does increase overhead costs because then you can't get rid of the rest of the social services. (Other people have addressed the fact that a comparison to GDP isn't valid because of taxes). > not counting in any overhead / administrative costs to give out the handouts. These costs are negative, in the sense that it allows us to remove the other low income services with much greater overhead.
- tokyodude 8y ago
  What will happen with the people who can't manage their money and blow their UBI other things?
  - dllthomas 8y ago
    The same thing that happens now when people who can't manage their money blow their salary on other things, except that it's marginally clearer what the problem is.
    - tokyodude 8y ago
      Right now those people get food stamps and welfare
      - softawre 8y ago
        You'd dole out UBI biweekly or whatever to solve the same problems that food stamps solve? I agree it's a good question though.
bjourne 8y ago
My best counterargument: Who cares about numbers? What everyone needs is food and housing. There is plenty of that for everyone to live comfortable and full-filling lives. The sooner we realize that, the sooner we can work on what really matters which is SAVING THE PLANET for future generations.
- reidjs 8y ago
  It’s more challenging that allocate food and housing fairly than money, though.
  - alligatorstraw 8y ago
    I'm not sure if the OP is advocating to abolish money. The supply of money is in some broad sense irrelevant unless there is not enough bills to pass around or we have to carry suitcases of money to purchase toothpicks. What matters is whether there is sufficient goods and services to support the population. Of course, you have to account for changes in behavior in consumption because of inflation and deflation.
- jacobtwotwo 8y ago
  May I suggest that you alter or drop the "who cares" part? That kind of dismissive rhetorical question will make anyone listening more willing to dismiss what follows out-of-hand as well. I very much agree with the core idea of what you said, but I felt my hackles rise as soon as I read the first sentence and I imagine anyone who actually disagrees won't even bother considering your side after seeing that you seem to not even care to consider their side.
- Verdex 8y ago
  I'm not sure what your actual position is, but this feels like a better attitude. Let's not worry about making UBI work, but instead let's worry about making sure that everyone has food and shelter. I think using money as a middle man to solve those problems will ultimately be problematic, but I'm not opposed to finding ways to provide what people actually require.
AsyncAwait 8y ago
UBI has not been implemented on a large scale anywhere yet, so I give you that, but the USA is hostile even to the most basic social programs, like single payer, because of the 'unfettered capitalism' ideology of many in Washington, which is heavily skewed to the right and does not represent the opinion of the population as a whole, (single payer has majority backing). Tell me where am wrong on this, because you can't start talking about UBI in the USA, while the political class in the country is super hostile even to the concept of universal healthcare, a policy that is uncontroversial in much of the developed, (even developing!) world. What about paid sick leave, maternity leave, paternity leave etc.? Here the USA does even worse, since not only does practically every developed and developing country have these, but in fact almost every country has some form of these. If USA is hostile to implementing social policies common in much of the rest of the world, you can't start talking about UBI in any serious manner anyway.
- JoeAltmaier 8y ago
  UBI not tried yet... Alaska? Social Security? Pensions? The idle rich?
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    The Alaska Permanent Fund is the only one of those that even hits both of the U and I points of UBI (the rest are just I); it doesn't even target the B, though.
    - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
      Of course they are basic. Many people live on social security, pensions. And they're a segment of the population. To study the result of a population receiving a BI, there's plenty of data.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > Of course they are basic. Which of them completely displaces means-tested welfare to provide the support floor for all who are in the eligible population. Social Security doesn't. Pensions don't. Being idly rich might, I suppose, in that that is just “living of capital” but ignoring all the people who don't have a lot to live on. > And they're a segment of the population. To study the result of a population receiving a BI, there's plenty of data. Not relevant to UBI there isn't. Some segment of the population receiving income varying a Ross indiciduals based on their past work and investments isn't even loosely similar to the whole population of a community receiving equal unconditional UBI, and there is little reason to expect the former to provide much insight on the latter.
thfuran 8y ago
But people aren't paid to do nothing under UBI. They don't lose the pay if they do things. Most people probably won't do nothing because that's boring. And Counting money is a bit harder than that. When I tip waitstaff, that income for them was my income before that and my employer's income before that and hospitals' income before that and, just maybe, that same waiter's income before that. But if instead it was medicare's money, it got an excellent ROI in terms of GDP output per tax dollar spent.
- RussianCow 8y ago
  > Most people probably won't do nothing because that's boring. I think you underestimate the amount of people that are content with not doing anything.
  - onetimeusename 8y ago
    yes, I am surprised this is overlooked. It may be that tech workers who like the idea of UBI imagine working on open source projects. I picture a large percentage of the population choosing to use drugs, drink, play video games, pick up a hobby that doesn't pay, watch TV, or even just do nothing. Then as a result of squandering their time, these people could become permanently unemployable or unskilled and would have to remain on welfare indefinitely.
    - nekopa 8y ago
      Except if there is UBI there wouldn't be (or be a need for welfare).
    - AdrianB1 8y ago
      With UBI people will stop using drugs because there will be no drug dealers to provide: the drug dealers will enjoy UBI and leave a risky business /s
    - SolaceQuantum 8y ago
      Why would it be bad to pick up a hobby that doesn't pay? I'd love for an explosion of art and philosophy to occur out of UBI.
jwigg 8y ago
That's the total population of the entire US, not the population of people who would be eligible for the full wage. There are a number of demographic groups who would not be eligible for various reasons, eg children (~74M as of 2010 census). That reduction alone is $3 Trillion. Beyond that, it looks like wages being roughly half of the GDP matches our current setup fairly well: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=2Xa https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=2Xa
haldean 8y ago
Presumably the UBI would be untaxed, so you can reduce the liveable wage amount by around 30%, right?
atom_arranger 8y ago
We could print more money. The inflation will hit people who have a lot of money saved up more than it will hit the people getting UBI. I'm not sure it's the right option, but it's something to consider. If you have someone below the poverty line and you tell them "I'll give you 30k, but due to inflation each dollar will only be able to buy half of what it can now." I think they'll take that deal.
- mrfredward 8y ago
  Tax the rich to provide a safety net = Europe Print money to fund government programs = Venezuela Historically, was there ever a time that hyperinflation didn't end badly?
  - astazangasta 8y ago
    There are plenty of times where printing money didn't produce hyperinflation. For example, the US pursued a policy called quantitative easing over the last decade which involved dumping trillions of dollars into the coffers of banks; inflation is still sluggish. This is because there are four terms in the equation of exchange: MV=PQ. If you increase M (money), P (price) will only go up if V (the velocity of money) and Q (demand) remain constant. In the US, V was very low and there was a lot of slack in our productive capacity (mostly because construction had overbuilt during the bubble years). The result was no hyperinflation or inflation of any kind.
- alligatorstraw 8y ago
  I never quite understood why many central banks expand the money supply by purchasing financial assets instead of just handing out money to everyone.
  - astazangasta 8y ago
    Really? Seems pretty obvious - purchasing assets helps their friends in Goldman and Citibank. Handing out money helps the poors. If you were a fat cat banker, what would you do? This, despite the fact that the utility of money is greater for the poors and the stimulatory effect of giving it to them is greater. But if we do that, we are told, we create "moral hazard" because people will think they don't have to pay their debts. Meanwhile we bail out TBTF banks like there is no tomorrow, moral hazard be damned.
est31 8y ago
In Germany we already have an UBI-like system where people without a job are being paid social security. It's far away from those $30k you mention, and they need to live very frugally, but you are fed, clothed, and won't freeze in winter as you have a place to live. There are two main differences of this system from true UBI: First, it's only paid to people who don't have any money at all (beyond a couple thousand euros). Any car, flat, house, expensive TV, etc. that you own is subject to that rule and if you possess those, you are required to first sell them. Second, it's not additional. Once you do make money, your income will only rise if you make more than what you'd have gotten from the social services. This locks in quite many people into this system because even if they would seek employment, maybe what they get in the end is only €100 more than without the social services, but they gotta get up every day at 6 am.
- JoeAltmaier 8y ago
  Right; that's an example of doing it wrong. Sure it helps people who would be suffering and that's good. But it disincentivises them. It doesn't allow them to save.
  - est31 8y ago
    Yup, that's (part of) why I think that UBI is needed.
  - jecxjo 8y ago
    Its not about disincentivizing them, its about not providing them with applicable skills that would make their production worth more than basic hand outs. It can be demoralizing when you realize that flipping burger is worth $100 a week more than doing absolutely nothing, but we don't live in a world where a burger is worth $40 that would allow them to be paid more. Younger people tend to not have a real concept of money and what it really takes to make it. What needs to be added along with being paid for existing, is training and potential job opportunities to be setup to get them off of the system. I think that most people in these programs would have no issue being given the ability to work. The major issue with be with people who will object to getting jobs they are "too good for." Hopefully those people are few and far between.
dsr_ 8y ago
Your biases are showing, and that's affecting the quality of your argument. "liberal controlled areas" is an indicator. People vote for policies that make sense to them. Most people like living in cities, and they like living in places where government provides services that aren't well-distributed by market mechanisms. Let's go with your $10T number. Then, let's apply a standard progressive income tax, of the kind that has been operating your entire life. Numbers are chosen for convenience and being not too far off from realistic. At 0 income, you now make $31.2K. No income tax due. At $7.5K income, such as a $15/hour job you work at for 10 hours a week for 50 weeks, you take in $39K and pay $750 -- a 10% tax bracket. At $15K income, working that job for 20 hours/week, you take in $46K and pay $1875 in income tax. 7.5K * 0.10 + 7.5K * 0.15 At $30K income, working full-time at minimum wage, you take in $60K and pay 7.5K * 0.10 + 7.5K * 0.15 + 15K * 0.20 = $4875. At $45K income you take home 75K and pay $4875 + 15K * 0.25 = $6100. At $60K income you take home 90K and pay $6100 + 15K * 0.33 = $11K. At $75K income you take home 105K and pay $11K + 25K * 0.5 = $26K, and so you are a net contributor to taxes. You can set the balance point where you wish: below it, people gain money; above it, people pay more in taxes than they take in from UBI. While that's going on, you can have smaller government: you no longer need most pensions, most welfare programs, and lots of bureaucracy devoted to finding out whether people should get assistance. And one more simple change: make income tax calculated by the IRS and you file changes against their preparation, rather than you sitting down and trying to figure everything out each April. Cuts down on frustration and tax avoidance.
- xur17 8y ago
  > And one more simple change: make income tax calculated by the IRS and you file changes against their preparation, rather than you sitting down and trying to figure everything out each April. Cuts down on frustration and tax avoidance. Yes please. It drives me crazy that I have to waste time copying numbers between forms for my taxes.
  - plinkplonk 8y ago
    Intuit (and others, I assume) lobbies strongly against this, and spends a lot of money to prevent this happening.
danans 8y ago
> $31,200 * 328,300,000 population of USA = $10,242,960,000,000 To start with, 24% of the population are minors, so that knocks a few trillion off that figure. Secondly, a UBI isn't a living wage, so $15 in today to dollars is not a starting figure, because that is a wage in exchange for work. UBI is meant to cover the very basics, like a food and varying amounts of housing (depending on the local housing market). For some, it operates as a dividend that helps make ends meet on top of their regular work, especially in high cost areas. In low cost areas it could function as a living wage, and even cover a significant portion of housing.
- linuxftw 8y ago
  > UBI is meant to cover the very basics, like a food and varying amounts of housing (depending on the local housing market). For some, it operates as a dividend that helps make ends meet on top of their regular work, especially in high cost areas. This merely will keep wages low (what currently is happening) by subsidizing poor pay. Many cities have subsidized housing (and/or rent control). The net effect is these people can 'afford' to live in areas while making lower pay. Without subsidized housing, employers would literally have to pay more or rents would have to go down; there wouldn't be anyone able to sustain the rents. The big difference is, with subsidized housing, society has created a captive poverty tier.
  - danans 8y ago
    > Many cities have subsidized housing (and/or rent control). The net effect is these people can 'afford' to live in areas while making lower pay. Many wealthy people who live in rent-controlled or property-tax capped housing benefited handsomely from the huge tax break passed by the previous Congress. Some of them have normal income but large inherited wealthbheld in securities like stocks, which also appreciated due to the corporate cuts. They can afford to live in places their income couldn't otherwise support. Your logic applies equally to that situation. You will always find people who you can argue unfairly benefit from a redistribution scheme. At least with subsidized housing the program is government administered so it can be accounted for when considering UBI. UBI doesn't erase the reality that some people got a better deal in housing, or life, but for a huge number of people who are scraping by, it helps put a floor under them.
coldtea 8y ago
UBI shouldn't be connected with "making a living in NYC" or whether. It should be enough to cover basic needs, even if it means having to move to a cheaper state. In that light, something like $10-$12,000 is more like it -- should cover rent, basic food, electricity, and so on. It's to not have homeless, destitute, left behind people, not to cover nice living expenses. For a family, $10 will be of course $20, and so on. A few friends could pool and stay in the same house with $1000 rent and get $40K between them, etc.
- wj 8y ago
  Moving is expensive as well. When you hear about families being unable to buy diapers in bulk because they can't save the $50 needed for that and instead buy smaller quantities at twice the cost per diaper you realize that some people simply can't afford to move somewhere cheaper as crazy as that sounds.
  - mazlix 8y ago
    Yeah but with UBI everyone would suddenly have a great source of credit. Who wouldn't loan someone $10k to move at a low interest rate when you know that person by being a US Citizen is receiving $10k/yr.
cweagans 8y ago
Okay, you've calculated the cost. But people aren't just going to sit on that money. They're going to spend it. Even if they keep their existing jobs, a large population having more disposable income stimulates growth in that area, does it not?
camgunz 8y ago
Couple things: Most UBI proposals don't cover a living wage. They're usually something like $10k/year for all adults, which would come out to $2.5 trillion. Most proposals both cut benefits and raise taxes, so this is very doable. Second, your example is kind of a socialism strawman, but let's take it to its logical conclusion. The current total income of the US is about $16.4 trillion (after Social Security, etc.). If we were to redistribute that across everyone in the US, that's close to $50k/yr. Considering that the average wage for men is $33k/yr and the average income for women is $19k/yr, that's a huge raise, 52% and 163% respectively. But that's giving everyone $50k/yr -- from toddlers to the mega rich. If we just include adults, it's closer to $66k/yr. That's a 200% raise for men and 247% raise for women. Of course, if you have an above average income you're losing money. And there are real questions about what such an egalitarian society and economy looks like. But you would eradicate poverty in the US and solve countless social problems. Fundamentally, UBI policies are about _redistribution_ of wealth, not additional expenditures as you suggest. Any serious UBI policy proposal takes into account budget and administrative overhead. For example, this [1] proposal from AEI, a conservative think tank. [1]: https://www.aei.org/publication/a-budget-neutral-universal-basic-income/ https://www.aei.org/publication/a-budget-neutral-universal-b...
strgcmc 8y ago
The existing Social Security program costs nearly $1 trillion dollars per year already (okay $900 billion ish) [1]. Sure, Social Security is not like a perfect, shining example, but it can be fixed/improved, and scaling it up by 10x (which is a gross overestimate, as other commenters have pointed out), is nothing to sneeze at. But at the same time, it's not really as ridiculous as your comments wants to paint it (i.e. "omg this is clearly patently absurd, why even entertain this nonsense?"). You've completely glossed over the fact that people generally don't hoard money, especially not those living on $15/hr. People will spend that money, and it could even grow the economy (by GDP). Your little mind experiment is not nearly rigorous enough nor realistic to justify dismissing UBI out of hand. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States...
doubleunplussed 8y ago
I can't believe there aren't more responses to you saying this, but obviously you need to increase taxes. UBI advocates need to admit that that is what they are advocating. I certainly am. ...but this increase of taxes would not harm average people, because they would basically receive the same back in UBI as the increase. Overhead would be lower than administering current welfare payments, since it's universal so they wouldn't need to do any eligibility checks - just making sure you're a real person so that you can't get it twice under multiple names or something. Other than that it would be break-even for the government, and for the average person. It's just income redistribution. You're taking the money from the wealthy, and giving it to everyone. The average person will receive as much as they pay and will be in the same position as before. The wealthy will pay more in taxes and have less money after tax. The poor will pay less than them and will have more money in the end. It's not that complicated, and it's not magic. UBI advocates are advocating redistribution large enough to support basic needs. Yes, that means taking money away from the wealthier people in society, but UBI advocates think we can afford this as a society.
- Verdex 8y ago
  Concerns: 1) People will realize they can work less and still get paid the same. This results in less work than we require getting done. 2) We will still need welfare because some people will spend all of their UBI on non-food items. They will also spend their children's allocation OR trick their children into spending their allocation on non-food items. The option will be to either let children go hungry or create a welfare system that provides only food. 3) It turns out that some people will get bored without jobs and decide that the meaning to their lives is to cause trouble for society at large. Without the need to get up for work they can now stay up until 4am every day finding ways to make life miserable for people who actually do the work that the rest of us rely on. At this point society gets schismed into those who do work and those that don't. 4) In the long term people decide that they don't need education, the ability to socialize with anyone, or the need to participate on any level in a positive fashion towards civilization. We'll have generations of people who only know how to go to the food silos. 5) Maybe there's some problems with actually paying for everything.
sctb 8y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18921194 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18921194 and marked it off-topic.
- skrowl 8y ago
  That thread was "my best argument for UBI" and my best argument against UBI is off topic? Seems fishy.

by skrowl 8y ago

makotech222 8y ago

Lol, the people don't just keep the money. they spend it.

delinka 8y ago

I'd assume that we would eventually make that distribution as efficient as possible with automation. I'd further assume that any money you make gets channeled through this system so that you have to earn past $30K to see any more money in your account. nit: ten trillion two hundred forty two billion nine hundred sixty million and no thousands ;-) How about "over $10.2 trillion"?

skrowl 8y ago
Good call mate!
bacro 8y ago
two hundred forty TWO billion to be correct :P
- delinka 8y ago
  fixed - I was going to correct his interpretation, but then decided to spell it all out ... I'm lame
jacoblambda 8y ago
The issue with your suggestion is that it dis-incentivises work which is one of the problems UBI tries to solve about welfare systems. Currently the issue is "why would I work more than X amount if that means that I make less than if I worked less than that (welfare + work)?" but with your system it becomes "If I am relatively unskilled, why would I try to work at all if that means that I will receive almost no compensation beyond what the government already gives me?". UBI is supposed to support people so that they can do the work that they believe is most valuable and to prevent people from being dis-incentivised from pursuing work. It has other goals as well such as eliminating other welfare services, removing minimum wage, and incentivising moving away from cities but those first two are the primary reasons.
- delinka 8y ago
  That's fine. It just makes the distribution system that much more efficient - the same amount for everyone. Then we could afford a flat tax rate for everyone simplifying taxation as well.

arichard123 8y ago

A few points occur to me. It doesn't need to add up that way, as the money goes round in circles. Most people are receiving money and living based upon it in the USA already, so perhaps it's more to with changing how it flows around rather than anything else. It could be phased in slowly. I think some people like it because it could act as a replacement for so many other government "aid" schemes. Disability allowances, Housing allowances, Health spending could all be cut to zero, as we would know everyone had money to spend on what they liked. Personal responsibility all the way. Other people like the idea of money for nothing, and well, if we manage to automate everything then we might need money for nothing to keep the wheels turning.

bryanlarsen 8y ago

Under a viable UBI scheme, a typical middle class worker will see income go up by $15/hr and taxes go up by $15/hr. So the vast bulk of that $10T isn't significant.

52-6F-62 8y ago

I'm not aware of a system that just blanket gives each person ~$30k a year. In Ontario (before the new government killed it before the study could be completed), the system was going to include a progressive taxation system— essentially, the more you earn, the less you receive in UBI payments, until you are actively paying into the system. The system would have also included the end of our current welfare and disability payment systems— putting less pressure on the bureaucracy and on the people who are in need of assistance. Many people taking part in the study were using the additional help (it was actually around $23k CAD here) to start businesses and go back to school. It's a little disingenuous to just shout about totals when I don't think anybody [serious, or to be taken seriously] has proposed such a plan.

skrowl 8y ago
Democratic presidential hopeful Andrew Yang is proposing $1000 (regardless of what you earn) for every American over 18. https://www.yang2020.com/what-is-ubi/ https://www.yang2020.com/what-is-ubi/ Almost all of the Democrat 2020 field (that we know of so far) have come out with some kind of handouts-in-exchange-for-votes platform for their campaign https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/democrats-eyeing-2020-presidential-bids-test-simple-pitch-have-some-n948086 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/democrats-eye... It's still early, but I'd expect to see them solidify over some of these types of income redistribution strategies as we near Nov 2020.
- 52-6F-62 8y ago
  That doesn't line up with your former figures or reasoning. It's not a good example.

gpm 8y ago

I think you could get away with a UBI which is substantially less than that. $12,000/person/year seems like it should be easily sufficient - since I live on that much excepting tuition in downtown Toronto (not cheap), in CAD (so really a lot less), just fine. Keep in mind that when you are counting per person that means you are allocating that much for people not in the workforce like children too. A 4 person household is getting $50,000/year with the above number. Expecting people who are just living on a UBI to move somewhere with a low cost of living also seems reasonable to me, I suspect you could substantially slash even the $12,000/person/year number and still have it be sufficient. I also think that a partial UBI (e.g. $3000/year) would likely be nearly as beneficial as a full one, but it does increase overhead costs because then you can't get rid of the rest of the social services. (Other people have addressed the fact that a comparison to GDP isn't valid because of taxes). > not counting in any overhead / administrative costs to give out the handouts. These costs are negative, in the sense that it allows us to remove the other low income services with much greater overhead.

tokyodude 8y ago
What will happen with the people who can't manage their money and blow their UBI other things?
- dllthomas 8y ago
  The same thing that happens now when people who can't manage their money blow their salary on other things, except that it's marginally clearer what the problem is.
  - tokyodude 8y ago
    Right now those people get food stamps and welfare
    - softawre 8y ago
      You'd dole out UBI biweekly or whatever to solve the same problems that food stamps solve? I agree it's a good question though.

bjourne 8y ago

My best counterargument: Who cares about numbers? What everyone needs is food and housing. There is plenty of that for everyone to live comfortable and full-filling lives. The sooner we realize that, the sooner we can work on what really matters which is SAVING THE PLANET for future generations.

reidjs 8y ago
It’s more challenging that allocate food and housing fairly than money, though.
- alligatorstraw 8y ago
  I'm not sure if the OP is advocating to abolish money. The supply of money is in some broad sense irrelevant unless there is not enough bills to pass around or we have to carry suitcases of money to purchase toothpicks. What matters is whether there is sufficient goods and services to support the population. Of course, you have to account for changes in behavior in consumption because of inflation and deflation.
jacobtwotwo 8y ago
May I suggest that you alter or drop the "who cares" part? That kind of dismissive rhetorical question will make anyone listening more willing to dismiss what follows out-of-hand as well. I very much agree with the core idea of what you said, but I felt my hackles rise as soon as I read the first sentence and I imagine anyone who actually disagrees won't even bother considering your side after seeing that you seem to not even care to consider their side.
Verdex 8y ago
I'm not sure what your actual position is, but this feels like a better attitude. Let's not worry about making UBI work, but instead let's worry about making sure that everyone has food and shelter. I think using money as a middle man to solve those problems will ultimately be problematic, but I'm not opposed to finding ways to provide what people actually require.

AsyncAwait 8y ago

UBI has not been implemented on a large scale anywhere yet, so I give you that, but the USA is hostile even to the most basic social programs, like single payer, because of the 'unfettered capitalism' ideology of many in Washington, which is heavily skewed to the right and does not represent the opinion of the population as a whole, (single payer has majority backing). Tell me where am wrong on this, because you can't start talking about UBI in the USA, while the political class in the country is super hostile even to the concept of universal healthcare, a policy that is uncontroversial in much of the developed, (even developing!) world. What about paid sick leave, maternity leave, paternity leave etc.? Here the USA does even worse, since not only does practically every developed and developing country have these, but in fact almost every country has some form of these. If USA is hostile to implementing social policies common in much of the rest of the world, you can't start talking about UBI in any serious manner anyway.

JoeAltmaier 8y ago
UBI not tried yet... Alaska? Social Security? Pensions? The idle rich?
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  The Alaska Permanent Fund is the only one of those that even hits both of the U and I points of UBI (the rest are just I); it doesn't even target the B, though.
  - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
    Of course they are basic. Many people live on social security, pensions. And they're a segment of the population. To study the result of a population receiving a BI, there's plenty of data.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > Of course they are basic. Which of them completely displaces means-tested welfare to provide the support floor for all who are in the eligible population. Social Security doesn't. Pensions don't. Being idly rich might, I suppose, in that that is just “living of capital” but ignoring all the people who don't have a lot to live on. > And they're a segment of the population. To study the result of a population receiving a BI, there's plenty of data. Not relevant to UBI there isn't. Some segment of the population receiving income varying a Ross indiciduals based on their past work and investments isn't even loosely similar to the whole population of a community receiving equal unconditional UBI, and there is little reason to expect the former to provide much insight on the latter.

thfuran 8y ago

But people aren't paid to do nothing under UBI. They don't lose the pay if they do things. Most people probably won't do nothing because that's boring. And Counting money is a bit harder than that. When I tip waitstaff, that income for them was my income before that and my employer's income before that and hospitals' income before that and, just maybe, that same waiter's income before that. But if instead it was medicare's money, it got an excellent ROI in terms of GDP output per tax dollar spent.

RussianCow 8y ago
> Most people probably won't do nothing because that's boring. I think you underestimate the amount of people that are content with not doing anything.
- onetimeusename 8y ago
  yes, I am surprised this is overlooked. It may be that tech workers who like the idea of UBI imagine working on open source projects. I picture a large percentage of the population choosing to use drugs, drink, play video games, pick up a hobby that doesn't pay, watch TV, or even just do nothing. Then as a result of squandering their time, these people could become permanently unemployable or unskilled and would have to remain on welfare indefinitely.
  - nekopa 8y ago
    Except if there is UBI there wouldn't be (or be a need for welfare).
  - AdrianB1 8y ago
    With UBI people will stop using drugs because there will be no drug dealers to provide: the drug dealers will enjoy UBI and leave a risky business /s
  - SolaceQuantum 8y ago
    Why would it be bad to pick up a hobby that doesn't pay? I'd love for an explosion of art and philosophy to occur out of UBI.

jwigg 8y ago

That's the total population of the entire US, not the population of people who would be eligible for the full wage. There are a number of demographic groups who would not be eligible for various reasons, eg children (~74M as of 2010 census). That reduction alone is $3 Trillion. Beyond that, it looks like wages being roughly half of the GDP matches our current setup fairly well: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=2Xa https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=2Xa

haldean 8y ago

Presumably the UBI would be untaxed, so you can reduce the liveable wage amount by around 30%, right?

atom_arranger 8y ago

We could print more money. The inflation will hit people who have a lot of money saved up more than it will hit the people getting UBI. I'm not sure it's the right option, but it's something to consider. If you have someone below the poverty line and you tell them "I'll give you 30k, but due to inflation each dollar will only be able to buy half of what it can now." I think they'll take that deal.

mrfredward 8y ago
Tax the rich to provide a safety net = Europe Print money to fund government programs = Venezuela Historically, was there ever a time that hyperinflation didn't end badly?
- astazangasta 8y ago
  There are plenty of times where printing money didn't produce hyperinflation. For example, the US pursued a policy called quantitative easing over the last decade which involved dumping trillions of dollars into the coffers of banks; inflation is still sluggish. This is because there are four terms in the equation of exchange: MV=PQ. If you increase M (money), P (price) will only go up if V (the velocity of money) and Q (demand) remain constant. In the US, V was very low and there was a lot of slack in our productive capacity (mostly because construction had overbuilt during the bubble years). The result was no hyperinflation or inflation of any kind.
alligatorstraw 8y ago
I never quite understood why many central banks expand the money supply by purchasing financial assets instead of just handing out money to everyone.
- astazangasta 8y ago
  Really? Seems pretty obvious - purchasing assets helps their friends in Goldman and Citibank. Handing out money helps the poors. If you were a fat cat banker, what would you do? This, despite the fact that the utility of money is greater for the poors and the stimulatory effect of giving it to them is greater. But if we do that, we are told, we create "moral hazard" because people will think they don't have to pay their debts. Meanwhile we bail out TBTF banks like there is no tomorrow, moral hazard be damned.

est31 8y ago

In Germany we already have an UBI-like system where people without a job are being paid social security. It's far away from those $30k you mention, and they need to live very frugally, but you are fed, clothed, and won't freeze in winter as you have a place to live. There are two main differences of this system from true UBI: First, it's only paid to people who don't have any money at all (beyond a couple thousand euros). Any car, flat, house, expensive TV, etc. that you own is subject to that rule and if you possess those, you are required to first sell them. Second, it's not additional. Once you do make money, your income will only rise if you make more than what you'd have gotten from the social services. This locks in quite many people into this system because even if they would seek employment, maybe what they get in the end is only €100 more than without the social services, but they gotta get up every day at 6 am.

JoeAltmaier 8y ago
Right; that's an example of doing it wrong. Sure it helps people who would be suffering and that's good. But it disincentivises them. It doesn't allow them to save.
- est31 8y ago
  Yup, that's (part of) why I think that UBI is needed.
- jecxjo 8y ago
  Its not about disincentivizing them, its about not providing them with applicable skills that would make their production worth more than basic hand outs. It can be demoralizing when you realize that flipping burger is worth $100 a week more than doing absolutely nothing, but we don't live in a world where a burger is worth $40 that would allow them to be paid more. Younger people tend to not have a real concept of money and what it really takes to make it. What needs to be added along with being paid for existing, is training and potential job opportunities to be setup to get them off of the system. I think that most people in these programs would have no issue being given the ability to work. The major issue with be with people who will object to getting jobs they are "too good for." Hopefully those people are few and far between.

dsr_ 8y ago

Your biases are showing, and that's affecting the quality of your argument. "liberal controlled areas" is an indicator. People vote for policies that make sense to them. Most people like living in cities, and they like living in places where government provides services that aren't well-distributed by market mechanisms. Let's go with your $10T number. Then, let's apply a standard progressive income tax, of the kind that has been operating your entire life. Numbers are chosen for convenience and being not too far off from realistic. At 0 income, you now make $31.2K. No income tax due. At $7.5K income, such as a $15/hour job you work at for 10 hours a week for 50 weeks, you take in $39K and pay $750 -- a 10% tax bracket. At $15K income, working that job for 20 hours/week, you take in $46K and pay $1875 in income tax. 7.5K * 0.10 + 7.5K * 0.15 At $30K income, working full-time at minimum wage, you take in $60K and pay 7.5K * 0.10 + 7.5K * 0.15 + 15K * 0.20 = $4875. At $45K income you take home 75K and pay $4875 + 15K * 0.25 = $6100. At $60K income you take home 90K and pay $6100 + 15K * 0.33 = $11K. At $75K income you take home 105K and pay $11K + 25K * 0.5 = $26K, and so you are a net contributor to taxes. You can set the balance point where you wish: below it, people gain money; above it, people pay more in taxes than they take in from UBI. While that's going on, you can have smaller government: you no longer need most pensions, most welfare programs, and lots of bureaucracy devoted to finding out whether people should get assistance. And one more simple change: make income tax calculated by the IRS and you file changes against their preparation, rather than you sitting down and trying to figure everything out each April. Cuts down on frustration and tax avoidance.

xur17 8y ago
> And one more simple change: make income tax calculated by the IRS and you file changes against their preparation, rather than you sitting down and trying to figure everything out each April. Cuts down on frustration and tax avoidance. Yes please. It drives me crazy that I have to waste time copying numbers between forms for my taxes.
- plinkplonk 8y ago
  Intuit (and others, I assume) lobbies strongly against this, and spends a lot of money to prevent this happening.

danans 8y ago

> $31,200 * 328,300,000 population of USA = $10,242,960,000,000 To start with, 24% of the population are minors, so that knocks a few trillion off that figure. Secondly, a UBI isn't a living wage, so $15 in today to dollars is not a starting figure, because that is a wage in exchange for work. UBI is meant to cover the very basics, like a food and varying amounts of housing (depending on the local housing market). For some, it operates as a dividend that helps make ends meet on top of their regular work, especially in high cost areas. In low cost areas it could function as a living wage, and even cover a significant portion of housing.

linuxftw 8y ago
> UBI is meant to cover the very basics, like a food and varying amounts of housing (depending on the local housing market). For some, it operates as a dividend that helps make ends meet on top of their regular work, especially in high cost areas. This merely will keep wages low (what currently is happening) by subsidizing poor pay. Many cities have subsidized housing (and/or rent control). The net effect is these people can 'afford' to live in areas while making lower pay. Without subsidized housing, employers would literally have to pay more or rents would have to go down; there wouldn't be anyone able to sustain the rents. The big difference is, with subsidized housing, society has created a captive poverty tier.
- danans 8y ago
  > Many cities have subsidized housing (and/or rent control). The net effect is these people can 'afford' to live in areas while making lower pay. Many wealthy people who live in rent-controlled or property-tax capped housing benefited handsomely from the huge tax break passed by the previous Congress. Some of them have normal income but large inherited wealthbheld in securities like stocks, which also appreciated due to the corporate cuts. They can afford to live in places their income couldn't otherwise support. Your logic applies equally to that situation. You will always find people who you can argue unfairly benefit from a redistribution scheme. At least with subsidized housing the program is government administered so it can be accounted for when considering UBI. UBI doesn't erase the reality that some people got a better deal in housing, or life, but for a huge number of people who are scraping by, it helps put a floor under them.

coldtea 8y ago

UBI shouldn't be connected with "making a living in NYC" or whether. It should be enough to cover basic needs, even if it means having to move to a cheaper state. In that light, something like $10-$12,000 is more like it -- should cover rent, basic food, electricity, and so on. It's to not have homeless, destitute, left behind people, not to cover nice living expenses. For a family, $10 will be of course $20, and so on. A few friends could pool and stay in the same house with $1000 rent and get $40K between them, etc.

wj 8y ago
Moving is expensive as well. When you hear about families being unable to buy diapers in bulk because they can't save the $50 needed for that and instead buy smaller quantities at twice the cost per diaper you realize that some people simply can't afford to move somewhere cheaper as crazy as that sounds.
- mazlix 8y ago
  Yeah but with UBI everyone would suddenly have a great source of credit. Who wouldn't loan someone $10k to move at a low interest rate when you know that person by being a US Citizen is receiving $10k/yr.

cweagans 8y ago

Okay, you've calculated the cost. But people aren't just going to sit on that money. They're going to spend it. Even if they keep their existing jobs, a large population having more disposable income stimulates growth in that area, does it not?

camgunz 8y ago

Couple things: Most UBI proposals don't cover a living wage. They're usually something like $10k/year for all adults, which would come out to $2.5 trillion. Most proposals both cut benefits and raise taxes, so this is very doable. Second, your example is kind of a socialism strawman, but let's take it to its logical conclusion. The current total income of the US is about $16.4 trillion (after Social Security, etc.). If we were to redistribute that across everyone in the US, that's close to $50k/yr. Considering that the average wage for men is $33k/yr and the average income for women is $19k/yr, that's a huge raise, 52% and 163% respectively. But that's giving everyone $50k/yr -- from toddlers to the mega rich. If we just include adults, it's closer to $66k/yr. That's a 200% raise for men and 247% raise for women. Of course, if you have an above average income you're losing money. And there are real questions about what such an egalitarian society and economy looks like. But you would eradicate poverty in the US and solve countless social problems. Fundamentally, UBI policies are about _redistribution_ of wealth, not additional expenditures as you suggest. Any serious UBI policy proposal takes into account budget and administrative overhead. For example, this [1] proposal from AEI, a conservative think tank. [1]: https://www.aei.org/publication/a-budget-neutral-universal-basic-income/ https://www.aei.org/publication/a-budget-neutral-universal-b...

strgcmc 8y ago

The existing Social Security program costs nearly $1 trillion dollars per year already (okay $900 billion ish) [1]. Sure, Social Security is not like a perfect, shining example, but it can be fixed/improved, and scaling it up by 10x (which is a gross overestimate, as other commenters have pointed out), is nothing to sneeze at. But at the same time, it's not really as ridiculous as your comments wants to paint it (i.e. "omg this is clearly patently absurd, why even entertain this nonsense?"). You've completely glossed over the fact that people generally don't hoard money, especially not those living on $15/hr. People will spend that money, and it could even grow the economy (by GDP). Your little mind experiment is not nearly rigorous enough nor realistic to justify dismissing UBI out of hand. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States...

doubleunplussed 8y ago

I can't believe there aren't more responses to you saying this, but obviously you need to increase taxes. UBI advocates need to admit that that is what they are advocating. I certainly am. ...but this increase of taxes would not harm average people, because they would basically receive the same back in UBI as the increase. Overhead would be lower than administering current welfare payments, since it's universal so they wouldn't need to do any eligibility checks - just making sure you're a real person so that you can't get it twice under multiple names or something. Other than that it would be break-even for the government, and for the average person. It's just income redistribution. You're taking the money from the wealthy, and giving it to everyone. The average person will receive as much as they pay and will be in the same position as before. The wealthy will pay more in taxes and have less money after tax. The poor will pay less than them and will have more money in the end. It's not that complicated, and it's not magic. UBI advocates are advocating redistribution large enough to support basic needs. Yes, that means taking money away from the wealthier people in society, but UBI advocates think we can afford this as a society.

Verdex 8y ago
Concerns: 1) People will realize they can work less and still get paid the same. This results in less work than we require getting done. 2) We will still need welfare because some people will spend all of their UBI on non-food items. They will also spend their children's allocation OR trick their children into spending their allocation on non-food items. The option will be to either let children go hungry or create a welfare system that provides only food. 3) It turns out that some people will get bored without jobs and decide that the meaning to their lives is to cause trouble for society at large. Without the need to get up for work they can now stay up until 4am every day finding ways to make life miserable for people who actually do the work that the rest of us rely on. At this point society gets schismed into those who do work and those that don't. 4) In the long term people decide that they don't need education, the ability to socialize with anyone, or the need to participate on any level in a positive fashion towards civilization. We'll have generations of people who only know how to go to the food silos. 5) Maybe there's some problems with actually paying for everything.

sctb 8y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18921194 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18921194 and marked it off-topic.

skrowl 8y ago
That thread was "my best argument for UBI" and my best argument against UBI is off topic? Seems fishy.