10 ms·

> Personally, I'm a big fan of the "for every $2 you make, you get $1 less from UBI/Welfare" That's..that's not UBI, at all. UBI is universal. If there are any

> Personally, I'm a big fan of the "for every $2 you make, you get $1 less from UBI/Welfare" That's..that's not UBI, at all. UBI is universal. If there are any means tests whatsoever, that's not UBI.

briHass 2y ago
UBI would never be truly 'universal'. If someone takes money from me and then gives some of it back, I don't consider that a free gift. The only way the numbers would ever balance would be for most income earners to end up being taxed >100% of their UBI payment.
- karmajunkie 2y ago
  or for the ridiculously wealthy to be taxed at a very high rate. which is why they reject the notion of UBI so fervently.
  - Kamq 2y ago
    The numbers don't line up for that. The sum total of the wealth of all the billionaires in the US in 2021 was ~$4.1 Trillion [0]. That's about the same as the government budget in a normal year pre-pandemic, or about 2/3 of the government budget post-pandemic. Assuming a $1000/month and a population of ~350 million, you're looking at $4.2 Trillion per year. You could almost fund it for the first year by taxing all of the wealth of the billionaires at 100%. But what are you going to do the second year? That's total wealth, not yearly income. [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2021/01/26/report-american-billionaires-have-added-more-than-1-trillion-in-wealth-during-pandemic/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2021/01/26/report-ame...
    - karmajunkie 2y ago
      just curious, but why is there always an implicit assumption in this debate that we only tax the wealth of billionaires? is the money of a half billionaire somehow less green than a full billionaire?
      - briHass 2y ago
        Keep going until you're taxing everyone that makes over $80K/year or so, and you pretty much have it being balanced. I never understood the UBI argument. 30 seconds of napkin math would show you how insane the proposal is, even at the rate of $1000/month. If you want to increase welfare for those below the median income, fine, let's have that discussion. Don't play games with the word 'universal'
        drekipus 2y ago
        Generally the people who want UBI "as promised, no compromises" also don't see why we can't just print money to make the shortfall
        jampekka 2y ago
        > why we can't just print money to make the shortfall Printing money to make the shortfall is how US public sector budgeting has worked for decades.
        patmcc 2y ago
        You'd adjust marginal rates so the poor would (net) benefit, the middle class would about break even, and the rich would pay more. Napkin math on that isn't that bad, especially if you chop a bunch of other welfare payments (and the associated expensive means-testing and administration). No one serious is suggesting "everyone gets $1000/month and literally nothing else changes".
        briHass 2y ago
        Which welfare plans are you cutting? Social Security? Nope, because the average payout is 50% higher than $1000/m. Same with SSI/disability. You certainly couldn't replace any of the medical plans (Medicaid/Medicare) with anywhere near that amount. The welfare plans that might be subject to being replaced only amount to a few percent of the federal budget. The bulk of the budget is those plans above, which would result in less benefits if replaced. You're not paying for this by finding lost coins in the couch cushions.
    - kelseyfrog 2y ago
      Where does all that money go after the first year? It sounds like it vanishes?
      - mordae 2y ago
        The stocks would actually crash if converted to money. The net effect wouldn't be more cash to spend, but a stake in the economy. You would probably have to invent some more democratic formats of corporate governance.
        kelseyfrog 2y ago
        Stocks are converted to money with every trade. Every buy has a matching sell. That's something that happens trillions of times a day and stocks aren't crashing because of it. I'm not sure I'm following.
        dmoy 2y ago
        I think the hypothetical here is if you tried to fund UBI via a billionaire-wealth-tax, it would involve liquidating basically all stock they hold. If you sell that much stock, the price will go down. (It's the opposite side of the coin compared to why you can't do a hostile takeover at market cap by just buying stock - the price goes way up as you buy up all available shares).
        kelseyfrog 2y ago
        There's several second and nth-order effects that seem crucial to our understanding. Every seller has a buyer. Who would be buying these liquidated stocks? What would the estimated new equilibrium be? What would be the effects of this equilibrium compared to the current state? Can we estimate the pros and cons? Conversely, holding the belief that stock prices are crucial to our betterment, wouldn't that imply that we would be better off if stock prices were higher due to more wealthy people owning stock and fewer non-wealthy people owning stocks? At face value that doesn't sound right, so I must be getting something wrong.
- hobs 2y ago
  It is a free gift, because you keep receiving it even if you dont make money next year. And that's right, its not meant to pay for people who can pay their way themselves, just like in most income redistribution schemes the rich would be taxed at several (thousand?) multiples of the value they receive back. In the current regime, the rich gain far more benefits from taxes (they pay little, and get to offload much of their cost of society to the rest of us) than in a UBI approach. That's the point.
- jewayne 2y ago
  1. Why are assuming that UBI would be paid for by individual income taxes? 2. Yes, no matter what, the richest people are going to receive so little benefit relative to their wealth/income that they won't support it. The same is true for most public services, actually. The ultra-wealthy receive little-to-no direct benefit from Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, public transportation, public schools (big one), public universities, or even public police and firefighters (they can afford their own). But somehow they haven't (yet) managed to rid themselves of these horrible violations of their privilege.
ixwt 2y ago
I disagree. Universal just implies everyone gets it. If the system includes a gradual fall off, it's still universally applied to everyone, no?
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  Everyone making less than 138% of the federal poverty level (FPL) qualifies for free healthcare. I dont think most people would say that the USA has universal healthcare. The same is true here. If you make $0, you get $12K UBI. If you make $24K, you get $0 UBI. Is that universal?
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    Assuming there's no other income tax on the first $24K you make, it's a bit aggressive but it's still a valid form of UBI and an improvement on the status quo.
    - jewayne 2y ago
      You're confusing Universal Income with Guaranteed Income. And again, Guaranteed Income is just another form of "benefits earmarked for the politically powerless."
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        This particular method is mathematically equivalent to both of them. There's no actual difference between "You get full UBI and you pay income tax on other income" and "You get X cents less UBI per dollar of other income". The system could be as simple as "UBI, also income tax is 50%, end of description".
        jewayne 2y ago
        The question isn't about mathematics, it's about psychology and politics. In the second scenario, when do I get/spend my UBI money?
singpolyma3 2y ago
It's not about means-testing, it's about setting income tax rates/brackets sanely so that it gets taxed back in an appropriate way and not in a way that prevents people from picking up work, etc.
- jewayne 2y ago
  The reason UBI exists as an idea is that means-tested programs are inherently politically vulnerable. Another name for means-tested benefits would be "benefits ear-marked for the politically powerless".
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
jon_richards 2y ago
Wikipedia has a nice graph showing how UBI and NIT are effectively the same thing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income
- ajnin 2y ago
  It's the same only if the income tax is linear, which is almost never the case ? Most places have progressive income tax rates.
  - jon_richards 2y ago
    For a given progressive income tax rate with UBI, you can make an equivalent progressive tax rate with NIT.

> Personally, I'm a big fan of the "for every $2 you make, you get $1 less from UBI/Welfare" That's..that's not UBI, at all. UBI is universal. If there are any means tests whatsoever, that's not UBI.

briHass 2y ago

UBI would never be truly 'universal'. If someone takes money from me and then gives some of it back, I don't consider that a free gift. The only way the numbers would ever balance would be for most income earners to end up being taxed >100% of their UBI payment.

karmajunkie 2y ago
or for the ridiculously wealthy to be taxed at a very high rate. which is why they reject the notion of UBI so fervently.
- Kamq 2y ago
  The numbers don't line up for that. The sum total of the wealth of all the billionaires in the US in 2021 was ~$4.1 Trillion [0]. That's about the same as the government budget in a normal year pre-pandemic, or about 2/3 of the government budget post-pandemic. Assuming a $1000/month and a population of ~350 million, you're looking at $4.2 Trillion per year. You could almost fund it for the first year by taxing all of the wealth of the billionaires at 100%. But what are you going to do the second year? That's total wealth, not yearly income. [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2021/01/26/report-american-billionaires-have-added-more-than-1-trillion-in-wealth-during-pandemic/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2021/01/26/report-ame...
  - karmajunkie 2y ago
    just curious, but why is there always an implicit assumption in this debate that we only tax the wealth of billionaires? is the money of a half billionaire somehow less green than a full billionaire?
    - briHass 2y ago
      Keep going until you're taxing everyone that makes over $80K/year or so, and you pretty much have it being balanced. I never understood the UBI argument. 30 seconds of napkin math would show you how insane the proposal is, even at the rate of $1000/month. If you want to increase welfare for those below the median income, fine, let's have that discussion. Don't play games with the word 'universal'
      - drekipus 2y ago
        Generally the people who want UBI "as promised, no compromises" also don't see why we can't just print money to make the shortfall
        jampekka 2y ago
        > why we can't just print money to make the shortfall Printing money to make the shortfall is how US public sector budgeting has worked for decades.
      - patmcc 2y ago
        You'd adjust marginal rates so the poor would (net) benefit, the middle class would about break even, and the rich would pay more. Napkin math on that isn't that bad, especially if you chop a bunch of other welfare payments (and the associated expensive means-testing and administration). No one serious is suggesting "everyone gets $1000/month and literally nothing else changes".
        briHass 2y ago
        Which welfare plans are you cutting? Social Security? Nope, because the average payout is 50% higher than $1000/m. Same with SSI/disability. You certainly couldn't replace any of the medical plans (Medicaid/Medicare) with anywhere near that amount. The welfare plans that might be subject to being replaced only amount to a few percent of the federal budget. The bulk of the budget is those plans above, which would result in less benefits if replaced. You're not paying for this by finding lost coins in the couch cushions.
  - kelseyfrog 2y ago
    Where does all that money go after the first year? It sounds like it vanishes?
    - mordae 2y ago
      The stocks would actually crash if converted to money. The net effect wouldn't be more cash to spend, but a stake in the economy. You would probably have to invent some more democratic formats of corporate governance.
      - kelseyfrog 2y ago
        Stocks are converted to money with every trade. Every buy has a matching sell. That's something that happens trillions of times a day and stocks aren't crashing because of it. I'm not sure I'm following.
        dmoy 2y ago
        I think the hypothetical here is if you tried to fund UBI via a billionaire-wealth-tax, it would involve liquidating basically all stock they hold. If you sell that much stock, the price will go down. (It's the opposite side of the coin compared to why you can't do a hostile takeover at market cap by just buying stock - the price goes way up as you buy up all available shares).
        kelseyfrog 2y ago
        There's several second and nth-order effects that seem crucial to our understanding. Every seller has a buyer. Who would be buying these liquidated stocks? What would the estimated new equilibrium be? What would be the effects of this equilibrium compared to the current state? Can we estimate the pros and cons? Conversely, holding the belief that stock prices are crucial to our betterment, wouldn't that imply that we would be better off if stock prices were higher due to more wealthy people owning stock and fewer non-wealthy people owning stocks? At face value that doesn't sound right, so I must be getting something wrong.
hobs 2y ago
It is a free gift, because you keep receiving it even if you dont make money next year. And that's right, its not meant to pay for people who can pay their way themselves, just like in most income redistribution schemes the rich would be taxed at several (thousand?) multiples of the value they receive back. In the current regime, the rich gain far more benefits from taxes (they pay little, and get to offload much of their cost of society to the rest of us) than in a UBI approach. That's the point.
jewayne 2y ago
1. Why are assuming that UBI would be paid for by individual income taxes? 2. Yes, no matter what, the richest people are going to receive so little benefit relative to their wealth/income that they won't support it. The same is true for most public services, actually. The ultra-wealthy receive little-to-no direct benefit from Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, public transportation, public schools (big one), public universities, or even public police and firefighters (they can afford their own). But somehow they haven't (yet) managed to rid themselves of these horrible violations of their privilege.

ixwt 2y ago

I disagree. Universal just implies everyone gets it. If the system includes a gradual fall off, it's still universally applied to everyone, no?

s1artibartfast 2y ago
Everyone making less than 138% of the federal poverty level (FPL) qualifies for free healthcare. I dont think most people would say that the USA has universal healthcare. The same is true here. If you make $0, you get $12K UBI. If you make $24K, you get $0 UBI. Is that universal?
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  Assuming there's no other income tax on the first $24K you make, it's a bit aggressive but it's still a valid form of UBI and an improvement on the status quo.
  - jewayne 2y ago
    You're confusing Universal Income with Guaranteed Income. And again, Guaranteed Income is just another form of "benefits earmarked for the politically powerless."
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      This particular method is mathematically equivalent to both of them. There's no actual difference between "You get full UBI and you pay income tax on other income" and "You get X cents less UBI per dollar of other income". The system could be as simple as "UBI, also income tax is 50%, end of description".
      - jewayne 2y ago
        The question isn't about mathematics, it's about psychology and politics. In the second scenario, when do I get/spend my UBI money?

singpolyma3 2y ago

It's not about means-testing, it's about setting income tax rates/brackets sanely so that it gets taxed back in an appropriate way and not in a way that prevents people from picking up work, etc.

jewayne 2y ago
The reason UBI exists as an idea is that means-tested programs are inherently politically vulnerable. Another name for means-tested benefits would be "benefits ear-marked for the politically powerless".

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

jon_richards 2y ago

Wikipedia has a nice graph showing how UBI and NIT are effectively the same thing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income

ajnin 2y ago
It's the same only if the income tax is linear, which is almost never the case ? Most places have progressive income tax rates.
- jon_richards 2y ago
  For a given progressive income tax rate with UBI, you can make an equivalent progressive tax rate with NIT.