4 ms·

Feelings are uncorrelated with accuracy. Last year, the US revenue was $4.7 billion [1]. The US population is estimated to be 342 million [2]. If we had no gove

Feelings are uncorrelated with accuracy. Last year, the US revenue was $4.7 billion [1]. The US population is estimated to be 342 million [2]. If we had no government, we could UBI everyone $13,742/year. This is the maximum we could UBI, and it is not enough to live on. But if you want roads, enforcement of food and drug safety, some sort of law enforcement system, national parks, at least enough military to prevent Canada or Mexico from waltzing in and annexing us, support for research grants, etc. then it's going to be substantially less than that. [1] https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/government-revenue/ https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/gover... [2] https://www.census.gov/popclock/ https://www.census.gov/popclock/

HanayamaTriplet 1y ago
Nitpick: Your math is correct, but you have the US revenue in billions rather than trillions.
mcdonje 1y ago
Don't forget all the private sector jobs associated with means testing. Read "Bullshit Jobs". Also, taxes on the top are way, way too low. As evidenced by the facts that inequality is at a high point and the super rich are able to thoroughly control the government. Edit: The person I replied to made a pithy comment about 'feelings being uncorrelated with accuracy', then made an incomplete superficial analysis. Now, I'm getting downvoted with no logical rebuttal. Seems like a knee-jerk emotional reaction to me daring to say taxes aren't high enough, even though inequality is high, and the balance of power does favor the super rich over the government and the masses. Either that, or an inability to imagine the second order effects on the economy if people who are currently working BS jobs had enough of a safety net to persue their passion projects. Even though their wages are private sector, the jobs are private sector waste to support governmental waste. Imagine if instead of getting people to work 40 hours a week to help a company determine if they're in compliance with a governmental means-tested program, people were just given money to live. Some would spend their time taking care of their grandkids. Many would start businesses. Open source projects would have plenty of labor. Towns battling invasive species would have plenty of labor.
- WalterBright 1y ago
  > the facts that inequality is at a high point and the super rich are able to thoroughly control the government. Perot failed at buying his way into the Presidency. So did Bloomberg. Hillary outspent Trump 2:1 and lost the election. Harris outspent Trump 3:1 and lost the election. The idea that rich people thoroughly control the government doesn't add up. (Though people definitely get rich by getting into power. The Clintons entered the White House as paupers and emerged around $100m.)
  - lukas099 1y ago
    And now we see corporations all falling over themselves to capitulate to the current admin. Money isn’t power; power is power.
    - WalterBright 1y ago
      They also fell all over themselves to capitulate to the Obama/Biden administrations.
      - lukas099 1y ago
        Do you ever feel like a plastic bag drifting through the wind? Because that’s how these companies must feel regarding their principles.
        WalterBright 1y ago
        Corporations must conform to the winds of the government. Not the other way around.
        mcdonje 1y ago
        Extremely naive take. Regulatory capture is very real.
  - mcdonje 1y ago
thechao 1y ago
I never even thought to think of it that way. I know that for a lot of readers that $13742 doesn't seem like much. And, cutting it down to (say) 25% of that — $3250 seems like a pittance. But, I'd wager a lot of people reading here haven't been really desperately poor. I lived on <$8000 for a few years, and <$20000 for twice that. $3000 a year would have been LIFE CHANGING. That'd be things like preventative maintenance for my car; regular food in my house; guaranteed electricity; no fear of eviction; the ability to go to the urgent care clinic when I sick (vaccines for the flu!). Y'know ... BASICS. There's a lot of predatory stuff out there when you're scraping by. An extra 250$/month would've been pretty amazing.

HanayamaTriplet 1y ago

Nitpick: Your math is correct, but you have the US revenue in billions rather than trillions.

mcdonje 1y ago

Don't forget all the private sector jobs associated with means testing. Read "Bullshit Jobs". Also, taxes on the top are way, way too low. As evidenced by the facts that inequality is at a high point and the super rich are able to thoroughly control the government. Edit: The person I replied to made a pithy comment about 'feelings being uncorrelated with accuracy', then made an incomplete superficial analysis. Now, I'm getting downvoted with no logical rebuttal. Seems like a knee-jerk emotional reaction to me daring to say taxes aren't high enough, even though inequality is high, and the balance of power does favor the super rich over the government and the masses. Either that, or an inability to imagine the second order effects on the economy if people who are currently working BS jobs had enough of a safety net to persue their passion projects. Even though their wages are private sector, the jobs are private sector waste to support governmental waste. Imagine if instead of getting people to work 40 hours a week to help a company determine if they're in compliance with a governmental means-tested program, people were just given money to live. Some would spend their time taking care of their grandkids. Many would start businesses. Open source projects would have plenty of labor. Towns battling invasive species would have plenty of labor.

WalterBright 1y ago
> the facts that inequality is at a high point and the super rich are able to thoroughly control the government. Perot failed at buying his way into the Presidency. So did Bloomberg. Hillary outspent Trump 2:1 and lost the election. Harris outspent Trump 3:1 and lost the election. The idea that rich people thoroughly control the government doesn't add up. (Though people definitely get rich by getting into power. The Clintons entered the White House as paupers and emerged around $100m.)
- lukas099 1y ago
  And now we see corporations all falling over themselves to capitulate to the current admin. Money isn’t power; power is power.
  - WalterBright 1y ago
    They also fell all over themselves to capitulate to the Obama/Biden administrations.
    - lukas099 1y ago
      Do you ever feel like a plastic bag drifting through the wind? Because that’s how these companies must feel regarding their principles.
      - WalterBright 1y ago
        Corporations must conform to the winds of the government. Not the other way around.
        mcdonje 1y ago
        Extremely naive take. Regulatory capture is very real.
- mcdonje 1y ago

thechao 1y ago

I never even thought to think of it that way. I know that for a lot of readers that $13742 doesn't seem like much. And, cutting it down to (say) 25% of that — $3250 seems like a pittance. But, I'd wager a lot of people reading here haven't been really desperately poor. I lived on <$8000 for a few years, and <$20000 for twice that. $3000 a year would have been LIFE CHANGING. That'd be things like preventative maintenance for my car; regular food in my house; guaranteed electricity; no fear of eviction; the ability to go to the urgent care clinic when I sick (vaccines for the flu!). Y'know ... BASICS. There's a lot of predatory stuff out there when you're scraping by. An extra 250$/month would've been pretty amazing.