4 ms·

Yes, but in USA it wouldn't be possible. E.g. Total welfare spending in 2015 is $454.3 bln / 318 mln population ~= 1428 $/person/year. That's equivalent of bas

Yes, but in USA it wouldn't be possible. E.g. Total welfare spending in 2015 is $454.3 bln / 318 mln population ~= 1428 $/person/year. That's equivalent of basic income 119 $/month. Want to get to 1000 $/month? Need to increase welfare spending 10 fold. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_welfare_spending_40.html http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_welfare_spending_40.h... People who get larger number use also pension or health care money. Though I don't think it is a good idea or other people would support that.

sampo 11y ago
Wow your math sucks. First let's take only adults, so it's 230 million, not 318 million population. And then, let's say for people who earn more than $30 000, or something like that, per year, we increase their taxes the amount equivalent to what basic income would increase their earnings. Now, I am unsure how to estimate the size of this population, because for some reason I easily find only US household income distributions, not distributions per people. But let's guess this removes 60% of the adult population. So we are left with something like 90 million. And now we do your calculation: $454.3 bln / 318 = $5000/person/year, or $420/month. Want to get close to 1000 $/month? Need to increase welfare spending 2-fold
- DanBC 11y ago
  You didn't need the insult.
learc83 11y ago
Most implementations would include an extra tax curve from no extra tax at $0 income up to $12k per year at say $55k. The effect is that you need far less than population * $12k per year. >People who get larger number use also pension or health care money. I agree we shouldn't be using healthcare. But social security is almost a trillion per year, and it makes sense to phase it out. There's no reason for a forced pension contribution plan when everyone has a guaranteed income.
- nightski 11y ago
  So not only are you giving people money, you are actively incentivizing them not to work by taxing them heavily for doing so. Interesting.
  - sampo 11y ago
    The net income of people earning over, say $55k, would stay unchanged. No heavy taxing here.
    - nightski 11y ago
      Well, no you'd have $12k less. You may have earned $55k, but you would no longer have the initial $12k. So for doing nothing you have $12k, and for doing something you have $55k. Therefore, the value gained in doing something was only $43k even though you did $55k worth of work. That is a heavy tax?
      - learc83 11y ago
        That's a change in opportunity cost, not a tax. If you view anything that causes an increase in the opportunity cost of not working as a tax, you must believe that charities are actively taxing working people. If a charity moves in and starts offering $1000 dollars worth of free food to anyone who makes below $20k a year, is that charity then taxing everyone who makes above that by $1000 per month? Also if you do want to view an increase in opportunity cost as a tax increase, you have to look at the actual net increase. There are already benefits that low income people can get, food stamps, housing assistance, earned income tax credit etc... that would go away under a basic income. To properly asses the net opportunity cost increase you have to look at the value difference between these benefits and $12k. As to your talk about disincentivizing work, the tax curve is just that a curve--instead of the current cliff that many low income workers face. Right now there are situations where are a low income worker can actually make less money by working (or less money by working slightly more) due to current means tested assistance programs. Replacing means tested assistance with a tax curve and a basic income would ensure that every dollar earned would increase your net income. Again this isn't always the case under our current system.

sampo 11y ago

Wow your math sucks. First let's take only adults, so it's 230 million, not 318 million population. And then, let's say for people who earn more than $30 000, or something like that, per year, we increase their taxes the amount equivalent to what basic income would increase their earnings. Now, I am unsure how to estimate the size of this population, because for some reason I easily find only US household income distributions, not distributions per people. But let's guess this removes 60% of the adult population. So we are left with something like 90 million. And now we do your calculation: $454.3 bln / 318 = $5000/person/year, or $420/month. Want to get close to 1000 $/month? Need to increase welfare spending 2-fold

DanBC 11y ago
You didn't need the insult.

learc83 11y ago

Most implementations would include an extra tax curve from no extra tax at $0 income up to $12k per year at say $55k. The effect is that you need far less than population * $12k per year. >People who get larger number use also pension or health care money. I agree we shouldn't be using healthcare. But social security is almost a trillion per year, and it makes sense to phase it out. There's no reason for a forced pension contribution plan when everyone has a guaranteed income.

nightski 11y ago
So not only are you giving people money, you are actively incentivizing them not to work by taxing them heavily for doing so. Interesting.
- sampo 11y ago
  The net income of people earning over, say $55k, would stay unchanged. No heavy taxing here.
  - nightski 11y ago
    Well, no you'd have $12k less. You may have earned $55k, but you would no longer have the initial $12k. So for doing nothing you have $12k, and for doing something you have $55k. Therefore, the value gained in doing something was only $43k even though you did $55k worth of work. That is a heavy tax?
    - learc83 11y ago
      That's a change in opportunity cost, not a tax. If you view anything that causes an increase in the opportunity cost of not working as a tax, you must believe that charities are actively taxing working people. If a charity moves in and starts offering $1000 dollars worth of free food to anyone who makes below $20k a year, is that charity then taxing everyone who makes above that by $1000 per month? Also if you do want to view an increase in opportunity cost as a tax increase, you have to look at the actual net increase. There are already benefits that low income people can get, food stamps, housing assistance, earned income tax credit etc... that would go away under a basic income. To properly asses the net opportunity cost increase you have to look at the value difference between these benefits and $12k. As to your talk about disincentivizing work, the tax curve is just that a curve--instead of the current cliff that many low income workers face. Right now there are situations where are a low income worker can actually make less money by working (or less money by working slightly more) due to current means tested assistance programs. Replacing means tested assistance with a tax curve and a basic income would ensure that every dollar earned would increase your net income. Again this isn't always the case under our current system.