4 ms·

> $1000 a year would have made a nice universal basic income for the last 20 years. I think you mean per month, not year. The idea of UBI is to give everyone

> $1000 a year would have made a nice universal basic income for the last 20 years. I think you mean per month, not year. The idea of UBI is to give everyone a subsistence income so they can devote themselves to skill development and career advancement, even/especially while caring for kids. $1000/year doesn't remotely accomplish that.

Alupis 5y ago
No, $20,000 per tax payer is $1,000 per year over the last 20 years we've been in Afghanistan. Which comes out to a whopping $83.33 per month. I think this just illustrates how expensive these UBI plans really are... particularly the ones that flaunt several thousand dollar payments to every tax payer per month.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  > I think this just illustrates how expensive these UBI plans really are... One thing to keep in mind is that this is half of the military budget, which is less than half of discretionary spending, which is much less than half of total federal spending. The other thing to keep in mind is that most of the UBI money would be immediately recaptured in income tax. Making it Universal keeps the logistics simpler, but a wealthy person should end up with little to negative extra money from a reasonable UBI implementation. > particularly the ones that flaunt several thousand dollar payments to every tax payer per month. Who's suggesting that much? And are they suggesting it for normal circumstances where people are able to work?
  - Alupis 5y ago
    > One thing to keep in mind is that this is half of the military budget Prior to "COVID Spending", the total US budget was $4.5 Trillion in 2019, of which 3.4 Trillion was from revenue, and nearly $1 Trillion was deficit spending[1]. In 2019, the total Military budget was a little above $700 Billion[2]. (these numbers also highlight the absurd levels of spending being contemplated in congress right now, 1.2 Trillion and another 3.4 Trillion - these are huge numbers). Sure, there's waste in the military budget, but majority of it is indeed well spent (we ask a lot of our armed forces these days, and that requires a lot of money, ie. you could not say, cut the military budget in half without severe consequences). For a UBI to make a significant impact on someone's life, it will need to be substantial (at least several hundred dollars per month). Cost of living, and therefore purchase power of that UBI varies wildly across the country, but even if we just keep things simple and pay every taxpayer (~144 million people[3]) $500 monthly, that total weighs in at 72 Billion Dollars every month, or $864 Billion annually. (again, just for tax payers) Some of that money will be recaptured in taxes (income taxes, which is absurd on a UBI, and sales taxes), but majority of it will end up directly in the economy. While good for the economy, that level of spending is just untenable long term for the federal government... and that's only for $500, an in-significant amount of money in major metropolitan areas such as San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles, Seattle, etc. Which is why many people are arguing for $2,000 monthly for all tax payers... and as you can see, the numbers just plain do not work. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_United_States_federal_budget https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_United_States_federal_bud... [2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/272473/us-military-spending-from-2000-to-2012/#:~:text=In%202019%20the%20United%20States,when%20adjusted%20to%202018%20dollars https://www.statista.com/statistics/272473/us-military-spend...). [3] https://taxfoundation.org/publications/latest-federal-income-tax-data/#:~:text=Stay%20Informed%20on%20Tax%20Policy%20Research%20and%20Analysis&text=In%202018%2C%20144.3%20million%20taxpayers,and%20Jobs%20Act%20(TCJA) https://taxfoundation.org/publications/latest-federal-income....
    - Dylan16807 5y ago
      > ie. you could not say, cut the military budget in half without severe consequences You could easily cut a third and match 2000's budget, adjusted for inflation. I bet half isn't even hard if we stop funding things like multi-role fighters. > and that's only for $500, an in-significant amount of money in major metropolitan areas UBI doesn't have to pay enough to live anywhere without a job on top. And again, who is arguing for $2k monthly? That's enough for two people to almost hit median household income. Definitely much more than necessary. > $864 Billion annually. Why is that not sustainable? If military cuts take that down to $500B, that's only an 11% budget increase. If the top 10% of earners paid a bit over a third more income tax, that would be enough to cover it. They're not even taxed that much when you consider capital gains. You could make it happen without military cuts too, if you wanted. And make no mistake, $500 a month with no strings attached is enough to do amazing things.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    > And are they suggesting it for normal circumstances where people are able to work? What would the U in UBI possibly mean if it’s conditioned on someone’s judgment of the recipient being able to work? (If they do earn income, you can tax some of it back, but if they simply choose not to and that means you don’t pay them, it’s by no means “Universal”.)
    - Dylan16807 5y ago
      I'm talking about extra money during lockdown.

Alupis 5y ago

No, $20,000 per tax payer is $1,000 per year over the last 20 years we've been in Afghanistan. Which comes out to a whopping $83.33 per month. I think this just illustrates how expensive these UBI plans really are... particularly the ones that flaunt several thousand dollar payments to every tax payer per month.

Dylan16807 5y ago
> I think this just illustrates how expensive these UBI plans really are... One thing to keep in mind is that this is half of the military budget, which is less than half of discretionary spending, which is much less than half of total federal spending. The other thing to keep in mind is that most of the UBI money would be immediately recaptured in income tax. Making it Universal keeps the logistics simpler, but a wealthy person should end up with little to negative extra money from a reasonable UBI implementation. > particularly the ones that flaunt several thousand dollar payments to every tax payer per month. Who's suggesting that much? And are they suggesting it for normal circumstances where people are able to work?
- Alupis 5y ago
  > One thing to keep in mind is that this is half of the military budget Prior to "COVID Spending", the total US budget was $4.5 Trillion in 2019, of which 3.4 Trillion was from revenue, and nearly $1 Trillion was deficit spending[1]. In 2019, the total Military budget was a little above $700 Billion[2]. (these numbers also highlight the absurd levels of spending being contemplated in congress right now, 1.2 Trillion and another 3.4 Trillion - these are huge numbers). Sure, there's waste in the military budget, but majority of it is indeed well spent (we ask a lot of our armed forces these days, and that requires a lot of money, ie. you could not say, cut the military budget in half without severe consequences). For a UBI to make a significant impact on someone's life, it will need to be substantial (at least several hundred dollars per month). Cost of living, and therefore purchase power of that UBI varies wildly across the country, but even if we just keep things simple and pay every taxpayer (~144 million people[3]) $500 monthly, that total weighs in at 72 Billion Dollars every month, or $864 Billion annually. (again, just for tax payers) Some of that money will be recaptured in taxes (income taxes, which is absurd on a UBI, and sales taxes), but majority of it will end up directly in the economy. While good for the economy, that level of spending is just untenable long term for the federal government... and that's only for $500, an in-significant amount of money in major metropolitan areas such as San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles, Seattle, etc. Which is why many people are arguing for $2,000 monthly for all tax payers... and as you can see, the numbers just plain do not work. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_United_States_federal_budget https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_United_States_federal_bud... [2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/272473/us-military-spending-from-2000-to-2012/#:~:text=In%202019%20the%20United%20States,when%20adjusted%20to%202018%20dollars https://www.statista.com/statistics/272473/us-military-spend...). [3] https://taxfoundation.org/publications/latest-federal-income-tax-data/#:~:text=Stay%20Informed%20on%20Tax%20Policy%20Research%20and%20Analysis&text=In%202018%2C%20144.3%20million%20taxpayers,and%20Jobs%20Act%20(TCJA) https://taxfoundation.org/publications/latest-federal-income....
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    > ie. you could not say, cut the military budget in half without severe consequences You could easily cut a third and match 2000's budget, adjusted for inflation. I bet half isn't even hard if we stop funding things like multi-role fighters. > and that's only for $500, an in-significant amount of money in major metropolitan areas UBI doesn't have to pay enough to live anywhere without a job on top. And again, who is arguing for $2k monthly? That's enough for two people to almost hit median household income. Definitely much more than necessary. > $864 Billion annually. Why is that not sustainable? If military cuts take that down to $500B, that's only an 11% budget increase. If the top 10% of earners paid a bit over a third more income tax, that would be enough to cover it. They're not even taxed that much when you consider capital gains. You could make it happen without military cuts too, if you wanted. And make no mistake, $500 a month with no strings attached is enough to do amazing things.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  > And are they suggesting it for normal circumstances where people are able to work? What would the U in UBI possibly mean if it’s conditioned on someone’s judgment of the recipient being able to work? (If they do earn income, you can tax some of it back, but if they simply choose not to and that means you don’t pay them, it’s by no means “Universal”.)
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    I'm talking about extra money during lockdown.