Check your privileges

[rah]

320 mil * 7,000 = what again? I think your numbers are a bit over optimistic

 

[Lexicus]

320 mil * 7,000 = what again? I think your numbers are a bit over optimistic

I get 2.24 trillion.

 

[rah]

Total government spending last year was around 4 trillion? Intake around 3.5. (estimate)

 

[Lexicus]

3.5T and revenue 2.9T.

Personally, the "it costs too much" argument holds no water with me as I see UBI as a first step in smashing capitalism completely through inflation-induced redistribution of wealth but yeah...

 

[rah]

I don't see almost doubling total government outlay happening or being sustainable. SO capitalism survives for another day.

 

[metalhead]

You wouldn't be doubling the total government outlay, because you'd cut $1.5 or $1.6 trillion of other spending at the same time. If you exclude people 65 and over because they collect SS, you eliminate another $300 billion or so in spending. So your actual additional spending is more like $300 or $400 billion.

 

[rah]

I think that's a bit optimistic. The average SS outgo is probably closer to 25K a year. This doesn't include medicare or medicaid. I don't think you save as much as you claim. But I'll listen. I'm not totally against it, I just don't believe it's sustainable. But I do think it's a bit silly because it really wouldn't solve everything. It wouldn't be enough.

 

[metalhead]

SS is intended to replace employment income completely, or at least, enough to be a sole source of income. Basic income is not. The simplest way to think of it is poverty reduction for the poor without the inefficiencies and benefits cliffs that the dozens of various programs introduce, and a large tax cut for the middle class. It reduces the necessity of work, which increases liquidity in the labor market and eases the burden for people caring for children or elderly relatives.

I agree that on its own, it does not solve every problem, but it is a crucial part of any forward-looking economic program that prepares for a future where human labor is used less and less. Just as importantly, it is critical to transfer wealth back down the economic ladder. As would be single payer health care and free (or very low cost) college.

 

[rah]

SS is intended to replace employment income completely, or at least, enough to be a sole source of income. Basic income is not.

Then I guess I'm unsure where you got that 1.6 trillion savings from

 

[Lexicus]

Then I guess I'm unsure where you got that 1.6 trillion savings from

Various tax credits and spending programs that would be unnecessary with a proper UBI in place.

 

[metalhead]

$1.15 trillion in individual tax breaks can be completely elimimated, most of which primarily benefit wealthy taxpayers; the large majority will see far greater benefit from the basic income tha they were getting in tax breaks. Depending on how you look at it, that is either $1.15T in additional revenue, or $1.15T in reduced spending that would be used to offset the expenditure of basic income.

We also spend over $400 billion on welfare programs besides Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Basic income replaces all of those various programs completely.

If you then limit basic income to people not collecting Social Security, your spending on basic income is reduced from $2.24T to approximately $1.9T.

So you've got $1.9T in additional outlays, but $1.5T in spending reductions, meaning the actual net outlay is an additional $400B or so. Some of that will be recovered due to the stimulative effects of the program, but I won't pretend to know how much. You could phase it out at higher incomes to cover the rest.

 

[Synobun]

Various tax credits and spending programs that would be unnecessary with a proper UBI in place.

Along with the fact that basic income would be exactly that, income. It would be subject to taxation after a certain threshold just like any other income you might earn. The middle and upper class would pay it back entirely through taxes.

 

[Lexicus]

If you then limit basic income to people not collecting Social Security, your spending on basic income is reduced from $2.24T to approximately $1.9T.

It would then not be a real basic income, though...

I don't see almost doubling total government outlay happening or being sustainable. SO capitalism survives for another day.

Not as long as the rich people don't cough up. But don't worry, we'll make 'em.

 

[rah]

"Various" isn't the exact amount of detail that I was looking for. We're talking 1.6 TRILLION dollars. And that would be just a piece of the amount needed.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It would then not be a real basic income, though...

So instead of "don't give it to people on social security" deduct the basic income amount from what social security pays. Same effect, and it is basic income for all.

 

[rah]

Politicians get into office by offering the population wonderful unattainable freebies. If this was so easy, you'd think they'd all be promising it. Or that some Euro country would have already implemented it without imploding.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

"Various" isn't the exact amount of detail that I was looking for. We're talking 1.6 TRILLION dollars. And that would be just a piece of the amount needed.

C'mon Rah...without even trying to think you can see where they are going. How many programs are there that are providing one thread or another in a 'safety net'? Earned income credit...no one qualifies any more. Unemployment insurance? Don't need that. Disability insurance? Don't need that. Welfare? Don't need that. Tax credits for employing the underprivileged that are in desperate need? There are no more desperate needs, so that and all the administrative costs and fraud that goes with it is gone. On and on and on and on.

 

[Synobun]

Politicians get into office by offering the population wonderful unattainable freebies. If this was so easy, you'd think they'd all be promising it. Or that some Euro country would have already implemented it without imploding.

This is a meaningless argument. There are so many things that are ineffectual or otherwise wrong that could be "easily" solved if you just solved it. Humans, especially large collective groups, are not keen towards radical voluntary alterations to their lifestyle.

 

[Lexicus]

So instead of "don't give it to people on social security" deduct the basic income amount from what social security pays. Same effect, and it is basic income for all.

Why though?

 

[Lexicus]

Politicians get into office by offering the population wonderful unattainable freebies. If this was so easy, you'd think they'd all be promising it. Or that some Euro country would have already implemented it without imploding.

Can't you imagine someone arguing the same thing about social security circa 1925?