5 ms·
Do you have a source of these estimates for me to learn? A lot of people kept saying it is very expensive but they did not factor in that UBI replaces all curr
by mikhailt 8y ago
Do you have a source of these estimates for me to learn?
A lot of people kept saying it is very expensive but they did not factor in that UBI replaces all current social welfare programs we have with a single program. When you compare both, it is not that expensive.
For an example, Social Security alone is ~5% of current GDP and ~4% for Medicare. [1]
> Expressed as a share of GDP, program costs equaled 4.9 percent of GDP in 2017, and the Trustees project these costs will increase to 6.1 percent of GDP by 2038, decline to 5.9 percent of GDP by 2052, and thereafter rise slowly, reaching 6.1 percent by 2092.
> Social Security’s annual cost as a percentage of GDP is projected to increase from 4.9 percent in 2018 to about 6.1 percent by 2038, then decline to 5.9 percent by 2052 before generally rising to 6.1 percent of GDP by 2092. Under the intermediate assumptions, Medicare cost rises from 3.7 percent of GDP in 2018 to 5.6 percent of GDP by 2035 due mainly to the growth in the number of beneficiaries, and then increases further to 6.2 percent by 2092.
[1]:https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html
That's just two walfare programs alone; there are others like SNAP, unemployment, etc.
- _rpd 8y ago> UBI replaces all current social welfare programs we have with a single program This is the conservative argument for UBI - liquidate social security and distribute the proceeds; do more good with the same money because we don't have to pay means testing overhead; smaller, less intrusive government as a bonus. The reality though is that every single social security program has been put in place as the result of a tough political fight. That politics isn't going to go away with the introduction of UBI. There will be demands to keep or reintroduce each and every social security program that currently exists. Funding can't realistically come from this source.
- mises 8y ago> liquidate social security That's not a just action for the government to take. The original premise of social security was pay in money as you work, get it out when you're old. Though FDR started paying out immediately from the younger generation, so it started a generation in the hole. However, it was supposed to be basically forced federal savings, with some sort of safety net component as well. Not fair to tell those who paid in they'll never get anything out because someone wants it for policy goals.
- dragonwriter 8y ago> The original premise of social security was pay in money as you work, get it out when you're old. No, the premise was always “pay taxes when working, receive benefits based on a formula driven by qualified earnings, with both pre- and post-retirement adjustment factors.” It has never been an investment vehicle with individual accounts, you aren't paying in and getting your money out with investment returns or matching or whatever. (That said, because it's not a traditional means tested benefit but time-delayed inverse means tested one, it doesn't really make sense to replace it with UBI.)