5 ms·

The GDP per capita in the US is over $60000USD. 20% of that is a rather large chunk to directly redistribute to the workers, but is it an impossible amount? The

The GDP per capita in the US is over $60000USD. 20% of that is a rather large chunk to directly redistribute to the workers, but is it an impossible amount? The effects of UBI on how we live our lives would probably be quite enormous and it's (to me, as a comp sci person) difficult to ascertain what its effects would be.

kortilla 6y ago
Yes, that’s enormous and you’re forgetting that a huge chunk of that already is income. You mentioned GDP in an effort to downplay the the enormity of the size. That’s every transaction for a good or service. That means to pay for this, not only would there be an extra 20% on income tax for everyone, but there would be a 20% federal sales tax on everything (including homes, surgeries, tuition, etc). “Redistribute from workers” is a cutesy way to make it sound like it’s just coming from some excess cache reserve. No such reserve exists. For the numbers to work out, this needs to come from the middle class’s income as well as the rich. There isn’t enough wealth, let alone income, at the 1% level to even scratch the surface on these proposals.
- the-smug-one 6y ago
  >You mentioned GDP in an effort to downplay the the enormity of the size No, actually I mentioned it because I thought you skipped out on the fact that money isn't a static amount which we drain out with UBI in this quote: >To put that in context, the top 1% have an aggregate wealth in the US of about 34 trillion. So we could take all of the net worth from doctors, lawyers, business owners, CEOs, FAANG employees, etc and pay for this for about 10 years. So I wanted to have a different measurement which took how much we produce into account. But thanks for assuming I'm arguing in bad faith, lol.
  - kortilla 6y ago
    > No, actually I mentioned it because I thought you skipped out on the fact that money isn't a static amount which we drain out with UBI in this quote: You can’t print your way to GDP. If you’re suggesting the government just issue the extra money without funding it, you’re just diluting everyone’s existing money because you haven’t increased the production of the economy. Constant issuance of amounts this big needs to be funded or the massive amount of demand for the same fixed amount of goods and services will just cause hyper inflation. And if you’re arguing that giving people UBI will make them work more and not less (enough to account for the GDP loss), that’s a pretty extraordinary claim that hasn’t been backed up by any ongoing UBI experiments. > But thanks for assuming I'm arguing in bad faith, lol. I’m not. I’m pointing out the incredible road block for UBI and you’re refusing to address it. It would fundamentally alter the economy to become the highest taxed of any first world countries and we would have the largest monetary entitlements per capita ever. Nothing like this has ever worked, none of the communist/socialist states (even at their peaks) gave out this much in income. People who are against UBI are concerned with that. It has nothing to do with lack of empathy. The problem with UBI is that it’s not solving a particular problem so there are no efficiencies to be gained. Like if we wanted to solve housing, we could have the Army go out and build houses at scale and the per house costs could be quite low. No such economies of scale come into play with UBI. You’ll find more support for federal government built housing and federal government provide food than you will for UBI when the reality sinks in of what you’re asking the middle class to sacrifice.

kortilla 6y ago

Yes, that’s enormous and you’re forgetting that a huge chunk of that already is income. You mentioned GDP in an effort to downplay the the enormity of the size. That’s every transaction for a good or service. That means to pay for this, not only would there be an extra 20% on income tax for everyone, but there would be a 20% federal sales tax on everything (including homes, surgeries, tuition, etc). “Redistribute from workers” is a cutesy way to make it sound like it’s just coming from some excess cache reserve. No such reserve exists. For the numbers to work out, this needs to come from the middle class’s income as well as the rich. There isn’t enough wealth, let alone income, at the 1% level to even scratch the surface on these proposals.

the-smug-one 6y ago
>You mentioned GDP in an effort to downplay the the enormity of the size No, actually I mentioned it because I thought you skipped out on the fact that money isn't a static amount which we drain out with UBI in this quote: >To put that in context, the top 1% have an aggregate wealth in the US of about 34 trillion. So we could take all of the net worth from doctors, lawyers, business owners, CEOs, FAANG employees, etc and pay for this for about 10 years. So I wanted to have a different measurement which took how much we produce into account. But thanks for assuming I'm arguing in bad faith, lol.
- kortilla 6y ago
  > No, actually I mentioned it because I thought you skipped out on the fact that money isn't a static amount which we drain out with UBI in this quote: You can’t print your way to GDP. If you’re suggesting the government just issue the extra money without funding it, you’re just diluting everyone’s existing money because you haven’t increased the production of the economy. Constant issuance of amounts this big needs to be funded or the massive amount of demand for the same fixed amount of goods and services will just cause hyper inflation. And if you’re arguing that giving people UBI will make them work more and not less (enough to account for the GDP loss), that’s a pretty extraordinary claim that hasn’t been backed up by any ongoing UBI experiments. > But thanks for assuming I'm arguing in bad faith, lol. I’m not. I’m pointing out the incredible road block for UBI and you’re refusing to address it. It would fundamentally alter the economy to become the highest taxed of any first world countries and we would have the largest monetary entitlements per capita ever. Nothing like this has ever worked, none of the communist/socialist states (even at their peaks) gave out this much in income. People who are against UBI are concerned with that. It has nothing to do with lack of empathy. The problem with UBI is that it’s not solving a particular problem so there are no efficiencies to be gained. Like if we wanted to solve housing, we could have the Army go out and build houses at scale and the per house costs could be quite low. No such economies of scale come into play with UBI. You’ll find more support for federal government built housing and federal government provide food than you will for UBI when the reality sinks in of what you’re asking the middle class to sacrifice.