4 ms·

No, you wouldn't pay for basic income from your taxes. Where did you get that? It's an extra tax that you are currently not paying.

undersuit 7y ago
Yeah, taxes.
Dansvidania 7y ago
I think what he meant was "we already have enough tax-funded government income for it, but it is squandered elsewhere".
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  This is simply not true. Giving every person the oft-quoted $1k/month would cost over $4T/year, which is more than the entire current tax revenue of the United States. So we'd need to more than double tax revenue to continue doing everything we are now plus pay the UBI.
  - Griffinsauce 7y ago
    It removes a shit load of misc. other benefits and all the bureaucracy needed to maintain them. That might not cancel out but it's not purely extra costs.
    - CydeWeys 7y ago
      Those other benefits combined don't come remotely close to $4T. I'd be curious to see which benefits you think could be eliminated or cut back and how much that would save.
  - refurb 7y ago
    The logic of it is that you could increase taxes to pay for it and above a certain income level, 100% (or more) of it would be clawed back in taxes.
    - CydeWeys 7y ago
      The required tax rates would still be unbelievably high though. Way higher than any other developed nation (some of whom already have >50% tax rates).
      - munk-a 7y ago
        Canada has a tax rate that tops out at 50% (mostly), the US caps out at 37%[1]. I think we'd all be better off if the tax brackets went a lot higher. Rich folks tend to have a lot of inactive money that's just sitting around doing nothing - we can put it to more productive uses. 1. Please note, these numbers are off of raw income tax - both Canada and the US have other employment related taxes that I'm not counting here (like payroll) since their proportional contribution is pretty minimal.
        spullara 7y ago
        You aren't including state taxes.
        munk-a 7y ago
        I am for the Canadian ones - where I can easily count the provinces. I am indeed too lazy to do the math on how much each of the fifty states leverage in taxes but it looks like they tend to come out well below 50% (except for CA, which is fair). Specifically, CT caps out at 43%, NY is at 45%, CA is at 49% and TX is 37% - since there are 0% state income states I find it reasonable to assume that rich people concerned with income taxes will chose to live in one of those 0% income tax states.
        srathi 7y ago
        and payroll taxes of 12% on first $140k.
minitoar 7y ago
My understanding of UBI was it’s a replacement for many existing social programs.
- free652 7y ago
  Where did you get that? UBI won't help people that get free housing in NYC UBI doesn't work with HCOL areas.
  - minitoar 7y ago
    Where did you get the idea that all current social programs would continue unchanged if something as radical as UBI were introduced?
    - lumberjack 7y ago
      There are two versions of the proposal. UBI as a replacement for social programs is fantasy. The UBI cheque would have to be insanely fat to replace the welfare/medicare/housing/food all the other forms of assistance that disadvantaged people need. I know a lot of libertarians support it because it is essentially a round about way of cutting social benefits. And hypothetically speaking, say the government is spending $10k/year on assistance to a disabled individual. If you instead give $10k/year to that individual in cash he would not be able to buy the same level of care for the same price on the private market. He'd get massively short changed. Welfare is far more efficient, financially speaking, than handing out cash to people and letting them fend for themselves.
      - saint_fiasco 7y ago
        > If you instead give $10k/year to that individual in cash he would not be able to buy the same level of care for the same price on the private market How do you know that? Countries with much worse welfare than the US often have much better prices than the US when it comes to healthcare. Maybe healthcare prices were allowed to grow so much only because insurance pays for most of it anyway. If that changes, healthcare providers would have to charge more realistic amounts, especially for common procedures like dental checkups and medications like insulin.

undersuit 7y ago

Yeah, taxes.

Dansvidania 7y ago

I think what he meant was "we already have enough tax-funded government income for it, but it is squandered elsewhere".

CydeWeys 7y ago
This is simply not true. Giving every person the oft-quoted $1k/month would cost over $4T/year, which is more than the entire current tax revenue of the United States. So we'd need to more than double tax revenue to continue doing everything we are now plus pay the UBI.
- Griffinsauce 7y ago
  It removes a shit load of misc. other benefits and all the bureaucracy needed to maintain them. That might not cancel out but it's not purely extra costs.
  - CydeWeys 7y ago
    Those other benefits combined don't come remotely close to $4T. I'd be curious to see which benefits you think could be eliminated or cut back and how much that would save.
- refurb 7y ago
  The logic of it is that you could increase taxes to pay for it and above a certain income level, 100% (or more) of it would be clawed back in taxes.
  - CydeWeys 7y ago
    The required tax rates would still be unbelievably high though. Way higher than any other developed nation (some of whom already have >50% tax rates).
    - munk-a 7y ago
      Canada has a tax rate that tops out at 50% (mostly), the US caps out at 37%[1]. I think we'd all be better off if the tax brackets went a lot higher. Rich folks tend to have a lot of inactive money that's just sitting around doing nothing - we can put it to more productive uses. 1. Please note, these numbers are off of raw income tax - both Canada and the US have other employment related taxes that I'm not counting here (like payroll) since their proportional contribution is pretty minimal.
      - spullara 7y ago
        You aren't including state taxes.
        munk-a 7y ago
        I am for the Canadian ones - where I can easily count the provinces. I am indeed too lazy to do the math on how much each of the fifty states leverage in taxes but it looks like they tend to come out well below 50% (except for CA, which is fair). Specifically, CT caps out at 43%, NY is at 45%, CA is at 49% and TX is 37% - since there are 0% state income states I find it reasonable to assume that rich people concerned with income taxes will chose to live in one of those 0% income tax states.
        srathi 7y ago
        and payroll taxes of 12% on first $140k.

minitoar 7y ago

My understanding of UBI was it’s a replacement for many existing social programs.

free652 7y ago
Where did you get that? UBI won't help people that get free housing in NYC UBI doesn't work with HCOL areas.
- minitoar 7y ago
  Where did you get the idea that all current social programs would continue unchanged if something as radical as UBI were introduced?
  - lumberjack 7y ago
    There are two versions of the proposal. UBI as a replacement for social programs is fantasy. The UBI cheque would have to be insanely fat to replace the welfare/medicare/housing/food all the other forms of assistance that disadvantaged people need. I know a lot of libertarians support it because it is essentially a round about way of cutting social benefits. And hypothetically speaking, say the government is spending $10k/year on assistance to a disabled individual. If you instead give $10k/year to that individual in cash he would not be able to buy the same level of care for the same price on the private market. He'd get massively short changed. Welfare is far more efficient, financially speaking, than handing out cash to people and letting them fend for themselves.
    - saint_fiasco 7y ago
      > If you instead give $10k/year to that individual in cash he would not be able to buy the same level of care for the same price on the private market How do you know that? Countries with much worse welfare than the US often have much better prices than the US when it comes to healthcare. Maybe healthcare prices were allowed to grow so much only because insurance pays for most of it anyway. If that changes, healthcare providers would have to charge more realistic amounts, especially for common procedures like dental checkups and medications like insulin.