3 ms·

>UBI would replace other programs, like social security and food stamps So UBI will take money away from the poor and the elderly? Median Social Security is al

>UBI would replace other programs, like social security and food stamps So UBI will take money away from the poor and the elderly? Median Social Security is already $15K based on numbers a few years old and will inevitably be higher with inflationary effects 2021-2022. And that's not including Medicare, which is another huge program that targets the elderly. In fact, something like 45% of Federal spending is targeted at the retired (who only represent something like 15% of the population). You can't fund UBI by having it replace other programs without asking people already benefiting from those programs to take gigantic haircuts.

dagw 4y ago
No you will replace what they get in social security, food stamps etc. with UBI.
- NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
  That just means "UBI for people who are not already old, infirm or poor [call it the top four quintiles of income for the working age population] will have to be funded from incremental taxation" ...
  - dagw 4y ago
    Well yes, obviously (although you can structure your tax scheme to target the quintiles you prefer). UBI is not about giving everybody free money, but providing a universal safety net and removing the absolute need for people to work to survive. If it where me designing UBI, effectively only people in the bottom 2 quintiles would get to keep 100% of their UBI after tax, and people in the top would get to keep 0% of their UBI after tax.
    - jonhohle 4y ago
      So not universal, then?
      - dagw 4y ago
        Universal in the sense that everybody who qualifies[0] gets it automatically deposited into their bank accounts every month without having to jump through hoops. People in the top 2 quintiles will however see have to see their taxes go by (at least) the amount that they get in UBI each year for there to be any chance of the numbers coming even close to making sense. [0] Citizens (possibly permanent residents) over 18 (or 16?) who actually reside in the country.
    - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
      So let's just assume that (generously) the cost here is really just "give the second income quintile an additional $1,000 per month"; on the rough-and-ready basis that most transfers are currently going to be the first income quintile and that UBI offsets those. ~260M adults in the U.S. so ~52M in that group; for a cost of $624bn annually. Bear in mind, this is assuming no-one in the third or fourth quintiles get anything, which is much less generous than your proposal, and that $1,000 per month is at the low end of the range often proposed. And let's say we're going to fund that by taxing the top 25% of tax payers. In 2019, last year with good data, the top 25% paid about $1.4tn of income taxes. So basically income taxes would have to increase by ~50% for that group.
    - MichaelZuo 4y ago
      But their taxes are still reduced with the UBI payment subtracted, so where does the extra revenue come from?

dagw 4y ago

No you will replace what they get in social security, food stamps etc. with UBI.

NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
That just means "UBI for people who are not already old, infirm or poor [call it the top four quintiles of income for the working age population] will have to be funded from incremental taxation" ...
- dagw 4y ago
  Well yes, obviously (although you can structure your tax scheme to target the quintiles you prefer). UBI is not about giving everybody free money, but providing a universal safety net and removing the absolute need for people to work to survive. If it where me designing UBI, effectively only people in the bottom 2 quintiles would get to keep 100% of their UBI after tax, and people in the top would get to keep 0% of their UBI after tax.
  - jonhohle 4y ago
    So not universal, then?
    - dagw 4y ago
      Universal in the sense that everybody who qualifies[0] gets it automatically deposited into their bank accounts every month without having to jump through hoops. People in the top 2 quintiles will however see have to see their taxes go by (at least) the amount that they get in UBI each year for there to be any chance of the numbers coming even close to making sense. [0] Citizens (possibly permanent residents) over 18 (or 16?) who actually reside in the country.
  - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
    So let's just assume that (generously) the cost here is really just "give the second income quintile an additional $1,000 per month"; on the rough-and-ready basis that most transfers are currently going to be the first income quintile and that UBI offsets those. ~260M adults in the U.S. so ~52M in that group; for a cost of $624bn annually. Bear in mind, this is assuming no-one in the third or fourth quintiles get anything, which is much less generous than your proposal, and that $1,000 per month is at the low end of the range often proposed. And let's say we're going to fund that by taxing the top 25% of tax payers. In 2019, last year with good data, the top 25% paid about $1.4tn of income taxes. So basically income taxes would have to increase by ~50% for that group.
  - MichaelZuo 4y ago
    But their taxes are still reduced with the UBI payment subtracted, so where does the extra revenue come from?