7 ms·

12,000 for 316 million people is 3.8 trillion dollars. Total GDP was 16.8 trillion Total federal tax revenue was 2.8 trillion in 2013 This would be an enormo

by gte910h 12y ago

12,000 for 316 million people is 3.8 trillion dollars. Total GDP was 16.8 trillion Total federal tax revenue was 2.8 trillion in 2013 This would be an enormous tax increase if it was the only tool used to provide income to people.

ahomescu1 12y ago
This assumes that you'd give BI to every citizen. One twist I haven't seen so far in any BI discussion is this: what if you only give BI to those who ask for it (but still with no strings attached)? I wonder how many people would bother. For example, why would Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg put in the effort, however small?
- enoch_r 12y ago
  Say it takes 12 hours to apply for basic income each year... $1,000 an hour is still an absurdly good rate for all but the highest earners.
  - cheald 12y ago
    And the people earning more than $1000/hour can pay their $30/hour assistant to do it for them.
  - ahomescu1 12y ago
    Sure, but the marginal benefit is almost inexistent. When you have billions (or tens/hundreds of millions), an extra $12k is practically nothing. This makes me think of mail-in rebates for electronics, at a different scale. It's also weird to me to see an engineer making over $100k/yr to buy a hard-drive or GPU with a mail-in rebate, then put in the effort to send in the coupon to get that extra $10 back (I've done it myself, but I don't earn that much). To someone making >$6-8k/month, $10 is peanuts. That's also how I see this $12k for billionaires.
    - dllthomas 12y ago
      There aren't enough billionaires for this to translate into meaningful savings, if it's mostly billionaires who don't bother.
- sp332 12y ago
  In general, I would expect rich people to sign up for it. Two reasons: First, they didn't get to be rich by passing up opportunities. Second, they hire people who work full-time to maximize their money, and those people will sign them up for this.
- jjdro 12y ago
  so the top 10 percent or so that cant be troubled to pick up 12k laying on the ground would reduce it to 2.3 trillion? How about something worthwile and make the tax rate on income over 2 million (out of the air) to 90 percent like it was post WWII and use that to help pay for it.
  - ahomescu1 12y ago
    > so the top 10 percent or so that cant be troubled to pick up 12k laying on the ground would reduce it to 2.3 trillion? I don't know, that's what I was asking.
rayiner 12y ago
Most people would get most of their tax back, though, in the basic income payment. Break even would be like $68k.
- marknutter 12y ago
  That raises the question - why bother taking those people's money in the first place?
  - sliverstorm 12y ago
    the argument is because that translates to tax credits, which basically means the exact system we have right now that everybody wants to scrap. So clearly we can't do that.
  - gte910h 12y ago
    One time a year payments (tax returns) have a different spending pattern than many times a year payments (welfare programs, and pension programs). The second pattern is the one that sustains people at the bottom edge of wealth. The former is what causes extra consumption. Additionally, poor people live in areas with literally no banks. Both of those alone justify a monthly payment method.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    Well, you're not taking those people's money in the first place. The justification for including them in both calculations is so that there are no discontinuities in the system where producing a little more of value for others means taking home a lot less in resources for yourself (like many means-tested programs).
gshubert17 12y ago
An enormous tax increase only if you figure there would be no compensating decreases in government expenditures. Unemployment benefits (60B$), medicare (600B$), social security (800 B$), welfare benefits (300B$) are just a start. [1] That's just at the federal level; there are a lot of state expenses that would go away as well. And there would be a lot of administrative costs eliminated, and a lot of corporate welfare programs could be cut as well, because everyone would have access to basic income. [1] http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_welfare_spending_40.html http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_welfare_spending_40.h...
- nardi 12y ago
  No, enormous tax increase regardless, with a balanced budget. If tax revenues are currently $2.8 trillion, and basic income alone would cost $3.8 trillion, then even if government eliminates all other spending, taxes would still have to increase by $1 trillion in order to only pay for basic income. Edit: The US Government does run a deficit, but it was $680 billion in 2013. A deficit of $1-2 trillion would be new.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    It's worth noting that increased economic activity would mean collecting more taxes even at the same rates. It's probably nonetheless true that, at the numbers given, there would have to be an enormous increase in tax rates - just trying to keep all the pieces in view.
- JoshTriplett 12y ago
  > An enormous tax increase only if you figure there would be no compensating decreases in government expenditures. Unemployment benefits (60B$), medicare (600B$), social security (800 B$), welfare benefits (300B$) are just a start. That's one of the more compelling arguments for BI: it's more sensible than the piecemeal programs we have. And don't forget the various tax credits and deductions that could go away, too. If done well, BI could be revenue-neutral or better. But in practice, unless you delete all of those in the same bill that introduces basic income, you're going to find yourself stuck with both the basic income and those welfare programs.

by gte910h 12y ago

ahomescu1 12y ago

This assumes that you'd give BI to every citizen. One twist I haven't seen so far in any BI discussion is this: what if you only give BI to those who ask for it (but still with no strings attached)? I wonder how many people would bother. For example, why would Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg put in the effort, however small?

enoch_r 12y ago
Say it takes 12 hours to apply for basic income each year... $1,000 an hour is still an absurdly good rate for all but the highest earners.
- cheald 12y ago
  And the people earning more than $1000/hour can pay their $30/hour assistant to do it for them.
- ahomescu1 12y ago
  Sure, but the marginal benefit is almost inexistent. When you have billions (or tens/hundreds of millions), an extra $12k is practically nothing. This makes me think of mail-in rebates for electronics, at a different scale. It's also weird to me to see an engineer making over $100k/yr to buy a hard-drive or GPU with a mail-in rebate, then put in the effort to send in the coupon to get that extra $10 back (I've done it myself, but I don't earn that much). To someone making >$6-8k/month, $10 is peanuts. That's also how I see this $12k for billionaires.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    There aren't enough billionaires for this to translate into meaningful savings, if it's mostly billionaires who don't bother.
sp332 12y ago
In general, I would expect rich people to sign up for it. Two reasons: First, they didn't get to be rich by passing up opportunities. Second, they hire people who work full-time to maximize their money, and those people will sign them up for this.
jjdro 12y ago
so the top 10 percent or so that cant be troubled to pick up 12k laying on the ground would reduce it to 2.3 trillion? How about something worthwile and make the tax rate on income over 2 million (out of the air) to 90 percent like it was post WWII and use that to help pay for it.
- ahomescu1 12y ago
  > so the top 10 percent or so that cant be troubled to pick up 12k laying on the ground would reduce it to 2.3 trillion? I don't know, that's what I was asking.

rayiner 12y ago

Most people would get most of their tax back, though, in the basic income payment. Break even would be like $68k.

marknutter 12y ago
That raises the question - why bother taking those people's money in the first place?
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  the argument is because that translates to tax credits, which basically means the exact system we have right now that everybody wants to scrap. So clearly we can't do that.
- gte910h 12y ago
  One time a year payments (tax returns) have a different spending pattern than many times a year payments (welfare programs, and pension programs). The second pattern is the one that sustains people at the bottom edge of wealth. The former is what causes extra consumption. Additionally, poor people live in areas with literally no banks. Both of those alone justify a monthly payment method.
- dllthomas 12y ago
  Well, you're not taking those people's money in the first place. The justification for including them in both calculations is so that there are no discontinuities in the system where producing a little more of value for others means taking home a lot less in resources for yourself (like many means-tested programs).

gshubert17 12y ago

An enormous tax increase only if you figure there would be no compensating decreases in government expenditures. Unemployment benefits (60B$), medicare (600B$), social security (800 B$), welfare benefits (300B$) are just a start. [1] That's just at the federal level; there are a lot of state expenses that would go away as well. And there would be a lot of administrative costs eliminated, and a lot of corporate welfare programs could be cut as well, because everyone would have access to basic income. [1] http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_welfare_spending_40.html http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_welfare_spending_40.h...

nardi 12y ago
No, enormous tax increase regardless, with a balanced budget. If tax revenues are currently $2.8 trillion, and basic income alone would cost $3.8 trillion, then even if government eliminates all other spending, taxes would still have to increase by $1 trillion in order to only pay for basic income. Edit: The US Government does run a deficit, but it was $680 billion in 2013. A deficit of $1-2 trillion would be new.
- dllthomas 12y ago
  It's worth noting that increased economic activity would mean collecting more taxes even at the same rates. It's probably nonetheless true that, at the numbers given, there would have to be an enormous increase in tax rates - just trying to keep all the pieces in view.
JoshTriplett 12y ago
> An enormous tax increase only if you figure there would be no compensating decreases in government expenditures. Unemployment benefits (60B$), medicare (600B$), social security (800 B$), welfare benefits (300B$) are just a start. That's one of the more compelling arguments for BI: it's more sensible than the piecemeal programs we have. And don't forget the various tax credits and deductions that could go away, too. If done well, BI could be revenue-neutral or better. But in practice, unless you delete all of those in the same bill that introduces basic income, you're going to find yourself stuck with both the basic income and those welfare programs.