4 ms·

Not an American, but from what I understand from hearing this argument here multiple times... 1. It is cheaper to just hand over USD$1K per month to anyone tha

Not an American, but from what I understand from hearing this argument here multiple times... 1. It is cheaper to just hand over USD$1K per month to anyone that bothers to show up at the BI office than to support an army of social workers and bureaucrats to sort out who's worthy of welfare and who's just lazy. 2. It is more fair to just hand over USD$1K of BI to anyone who asks because bureaucrats are not quite good at sorting out who's worthy anyways. Under current system people with genuine dire needs fall through the cracks while the benefits of welfare goes to those who take the time to learn and game the system. 3. BI is in the long term more productive for the whole economy because it can be used to complement/subsidize low income for unskilled workers, while welfare eligibility rules prevent receivers from bootstrapping out of poverty if they cannot find entry level jobs that pay at least as much as what multiple welfare programs already provide.

prostoalex 12y ago
> It is cheaper to just hand over USD$1K per month to anyone that bothers to show up at the BI office than to support an army of social workers and bureaucrats Your worst case scenario under this program is 300,000,000 Americans showing up during a downturn in the economy. That's $300 billion a month, $3.6 trillion a year, or roughly 100% of current US budget expenditure (with entitlement, defense, discretionary, etc.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#Major_expenditure_categories http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#Ma... So it's definitely not cheaper, even when you account for the cost of maintaining the bureaucracy.
- hollerith 12y ago
  >That's $300 billion a month, $36 trillion a year Math error here.
  - prostoalex 12y ago
    Thanks, corrected.
- jacobgreenleaf 12y ago
  At the height of the great depression only ~23% of workers were out of jobs. That's hardly 100% during a "downturn." At 100% unemployment do you really think our current system of privately owned property would fare any better? Personally I think at 100% unemployment the masses would seize all the property, and probably rightfully so.
  - Domenic_S 12y ago
    BI is typically given to everyone as a basic right - including those with jobs.
  - prostoalex 12y ago
    So are you inserting a qualification for being unemployed and no longer allowing just anybody to walk in and demand their share of basic income? Then you're back to the problem of needing to hire more bureaucracy with respective office leases, equipment, etc., to verify the employment status. Unemployment is also a weak estimate, what you want is unemployment + the negative labor force participation - kids and retirees are not unemployed in the sense that they're actively seeking employment, but would probably not pass up an opportunity for free cash.
- rahimnathwani 12y ago
  US government expenditure is more than $6.3 trillion. The $3.6 trillion you quoted is just federal spending, and does not include state and local spending: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/total http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/total So, it's more like 50-something percent, not 100%. Also, some of the money would come back as sales tax etc., so the real impact would be less than 50%.

prostoalex 12y ago

> It is cheaper to just hand over USD$1K per month to anyone that bothers to show up at the BI office than to support an army of social workers and bureaucrats Your worst case scenario under this program is 300,000,000 Americans showing up during a downturn in the economy. That's $300 billion a month, $3.6 trillion a year, or roughly 100% of current US budget expenditure (with entitlement, defense, discretionary, etc.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#Major_expenditure_categories http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#Ma... So it's definitely not cheaper, even when you account for the cost of maintaining the bureaucracy.

hollerith 12y ago
>That's $300 billion a month, $36 trillion a year Math error here.
- prostoalex 12y ago
  Thanks, corrected.
jacobgreenleaf 12y ago
At the height of the great depression only ~23% of workers were out of jobs. That's hardly 100% during a "downturn." At 100% unemployment do you really think our current system of privately owned property would fare any better? Personally I think at 100% unemployment the masses would seize all the property, and probably rightfully so.
- Domenic_S 12y ago
  BI is typically given to everyone as a basic right - including those with jobs.
- prostoalex 12y ago
  So are you inserting a qualification for being unemployed and no longer allowing just anybody to walk in and demand their share of basic income? Then you're back to the problem of needing to hire more bureaucracy with respective office leases, equipment, etc., to verify the employment status. Unemployment is also a weak estimate, what you want is unemployment + the negative labor force participation - kids and retirees are not unemployed in the sense that they're actively seeking employment, but would probably not pass up an opportunity for free cash.
rahimnathwani 12y ago
US government expenditure is more than $6.3 trillion. The $3.6 trillion you quoted is just federal spending, and does not include state and local spending: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/total http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/total So, it's more like 50-something percent, not 100%. Also, some of the money would come back as sales tax etc., so the real impact would be less than 50%.