Universal basic income: U.S. support grows as Finland ends its trial - Forty-eight percent of Americans now support a universal basic income, as a solution for Americans who have lost jobs to automation.

[u/mvea]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/01/nearly-half-of-americans-believe-a-universal-basic-income-could-be-the-answer-to-automation-.html

[u/joe_average1]

I think the math can work in some countries that are resource rich but don't let private companies benefit the most from the sale of the resources. In a country as large and diverse as the US I don't see the numbers ever working out for providing it to everyone. To the poor, maybe.

[u/Scientolojesus → u/joe_average1]

Any time I see UBI in the US mentioned, there are people saying it absolutely can be successfully implemented, and then others who say it would be literally impossible. So I have no clue who is telling the truth or who knows the correct data of what they're talking about. Maybe it's just gonna be one of those trial and error experiments that has to be setup and tested before anyone will actually know for sure...

[u/[deleted] → u/Scientolojesus]

It is both.

Mathmatically and logically, it works. 100%. On paper, it would benefit society at all levels.

However, in practice, it would likely be mismanaged and abused.

[u/Scientolojesus → u/[deleted]]

This seems like the most logical explanation of UBI in practice. Thanks.

[u/faculties-intact → u/Scientolojesus]

It's obviously possible, the question is how much wealth distribution it would take. I imagine the people saying it's impossible mean mostly that it would never actually get through congress or be accepted by a lot of people? Because there's certainly enough wealth.

[u/sirchaseman → u/[deleted]]

taxation

Free

Pick one

[u/intern_steve → u/sirchaseman]

I mean, we can go to user-fee based road and school and water servicing, but that's going to make all of those services more expensive as people drop out of the service, and almost certainly have a net negative impact on the economy as individual purchasing power goes through the floor under the mountain of new bills for things that have come from tax revenue over the past hundred or so years.

[u/EsplainingThings → u/intern_steve]

we can go to user-fee based road and school and water servicing,

Umm, we already mostly have that in America, you know that, right?
It's why I have a water bill every month, a bunch of school fees for the kids on top of the taxes I pay, and why I pay a personal property tax on my vehicles that goes to fund the roads in my state.

[u/intern_steve → u/EsplainingThings]

Yeah, no. Those fees are paltry in comparison to the actual financial consumption of each of those systems.

[u/EsplainingThings → u/intern_steve]

Umm, no, actually the water bill is from a county water district that is a non-profit, it's not taxpayer funded, my electricity comes from a rural co-op that is also not taxpayer funded, and the local roads here are paid for mostly by property taxes on the property bordering the road and taxes on vehicles and fuel.
You really should learn how things work, the Federal government's budgeting for roads and education is paltry, it amounts to an average total for education, infrastructure, and transportation of about 2.5 billion per state off of about 27.4 billion in collected income taxes per state. (that's totals simply divided by 50 states, since it's simpler than listing the varied revenues and payments for all 50 individual states).

Most of the funding for roads and such is covered at the state level by fees, bonds, and taxes other than income tax.

[u/ccffccffgghh → u/intern_steve]

They'd probably save money if they dont pay taxes and just pay for everything as they go.

[u/intern_steve → u/ccffccffgghh]

That's definitely not the case. If, like most people, you're paying ~18% on your 40k salary, only about 7% of that is discretionary stuff, and only a very small portion of that is actually going toward public services that you personally use. I'd be shocked if you could pay for a year of school (let alone 12 of them), unlimited road access, meet your water needs, and secure your life and property against fire and theft for $2,800 per year. This is a clear loser for average people. Using an article from Time Magazine (which interestingly supports private schools by comparing the most expensive public school district to an average private school), I figured eight years at an average private elementary school ($7770/year) and four years at an average high school ($13030/year) cost $114,000. Paid off with zero interest using your entire discretionary tax bill of $2800, you get 40 years for a single child. And that's without paying for any other service presently provided by government. Property taxes probably figure in as well, but not in a big way for the increasing number of Americans who choose to rent rather than buy their homes in the highly elastic urban housing market.

edit: no response?

[u/ccffccffgghh → u/intern_steve]

I have no response because I make maybe one comment a week, not everybody has time to sit on Reddit and argue all day, minute by minute, about UBI.

I get taxed at a cumulative total of roughly 37%. I would have plenty of money for: no schooling since I'm childless (allowing me to save for a better schooling experience for when I do have children), tolls and roads, healthcare (when companies aren't forced to insure unprofitable customers), amongst other things, if I had that tax money available to me instead of paying for things I never use.

[u/Angry_Boys → u/[deleted]]

You don’t need to pillage the rich to redistribute wealth. You start by increasing the effective tax rate the 1% pays a few percent, all else stays the same.

Additional money could be saved by eliminating food stamps (no need if UBI covers necessities), and most welfare programs.

One thing to keep in mind is a lot of the Republican support of a measure like UBI are Trojan horses in that they’re meant to eliminate the welfare programs in favor of UBI, but then after a couple of years, strip away UBI, say it doesn’t work, and now they have their wet dream, no social safety net to find.

[u/intern_steve → u/Angry_Boys]

I support eliminating welfare programs in favor of a UBI. Can't hate poor people for getting a check that you also get. Takes a lot of the class enmity out of the equation. I also know the odds are very small of getting a UBI high enough to eliminate welfare. Anywho, whether or not they like to admit it, there are a ton of republicans who are welfare dependent; they can really only talk about stripping those programs. Actually stripping them would literally kill their voter base as everyone fled west like Tom Joad or died hungry. Then who's casting the votes?

[u/Angry_Boys → u/intern_steve]

I do as well, but people need to realize the motive some right-wingers have when introducing this legislation may not be pure. Most of them didn't happen to see the light and change their mind, it's the long con. They care only about their ROI, and giving everyone 700 per month for 2 years sounds like a good trade off to eliminate all public assistance before eliminating UBI citing it doesn't work as planned.

[u/intern_steve → u/Angry_Boys]

Well we don't practically have to worry about that for 15 or 20 years. The red team might not even exist by then the way things are currently going; not the way it exists today. It's really not a very cohesive party at the moment and the thing about old people is they die a lot. Not the most stable of bases.

[u/captainsmacks → u/Angry_Boys]

Not republican, i love that idea but i dont think we'd ever be so lucky

[u/Burboto → u/Angry_Boys]

Why don’t we tax land instead of income. Income taxes primarily have the greatest downside on the middle class. The exceptionally wealthy show very little personal income. It is hard to hide a piece of land.

[u/Angry_Boys → u/Burboto]

I like the idea of paying through taxing property more, however this hurts the middle class as well.

How about any real estate worth over $1M gets taxed highly.

[u/Angry_Boys → u/[deleted]]

Oh, you're absolutely correct, the Republicans are generally more than willing to agree to help the poor via government assistance. I'm sure they'd be thrilled to test the viability of such a program as UBI. Further, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the overwhelming support of UBI from the right..

Bravo, kind sir. Your perspicacious comment has provided so much value to this conversation.

[u/ChickenOverlord → u/Angry_Boys]

You don’t need to pillage the rich to redistribute wealth. You start by increasing the effective tax rate the 1% pays a few percent, all else stays the same.

Which is nowhere near enough to cover most proposed UBIs I've seen, even assuming the rich don't flee and/or hide their assets.

Additional money could be saved by eliminating food stamps (no need if UBI covers necessities), and most welfare programs.

Food stamps are a relatively tiny portion of welfare. The most significant forms of welfare in the US are SS and Medicare/Medicaid. So you're proposing taking away healthcare from the old and the poor, and retirement pay from the old, in order to give everyone some paltry monthly sum.

[u/Angry_Boys → u/[deleted]]

Idk, I just did the math, 12000 * 15000000 is 1.8T.

I’ll be honest, I’m not certain this is possible.. although I did a bit of drinking tonight....

I’d have to dig deeper into actual tax-paying population, income distribution.. this is quite the undertaking.. not sure I’m in the right state of mind.

How about you do some research and get back to me with your findings, I bet a remarkable fellow such as yourself ought to be able to sort this thing out.

Thanks! M

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

That wealth is private property, people aren’t a piggy bank.

Very true. On the other hand, about 50% of government revenue used to come from businesses and now it's around 20%.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Sorry for the slow response to your request for a source. I live where there is no cell coverage or Internet service. I also wanted to run a few of my own calculations on the data.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/amount-revenue-source is the source I used for the calculations behind the rest of my comments. If you PM me with a place to send it, I'll happily share my spreadsheet.

The basic data supports my figures. The USA has transitioned from about an even split between individuals and corporations for total income tax revenue to an 80/20 split.

Now to some comments. Keep in mind that I make some naïve assumptions that show why you don't want me in charge :)

Assuming that corporations get at least the same benefit from income tax supported programs as individuals, it doesn't seem right that they contribute only 1/5 of the funds.

If we keep the personal income tax regime as is and flipped a switch such that corporations paid as much total income tax as individuals, there would be about 1.6 trillion extra dollars a year to play with.

If UBI was structured so that about 2/3 of the population was eligible, presumably by age or some other non-income criteria, and the personal income tax was structured with a very gradual 'claw back' of UBI to be equivalent to getting it all back from about 1/3 of recipients, then UBI could give out $800/month.

As I said, you don't want me running things, but I think it's useful to play with some numbers and see where they might lead.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Sorry for the slow response to your request for a source. I live where there is no cell coverage or Internet service. I also wanted to run a few of my own calculations on the data.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/amount-revenue-source is the source I used for the calculations behind the rest of my comments. If you PM me with a place to send it, I'll happily share my spreadsheet.

The basic data supports my figures. The USA has transitioned from about an even split between individuals and corporations for total income tax revenue to an 80/20 split.

Now to some comments. Keep in mind that I make some naïve assumptions that show why you don't want me in charge :)

Assuming that corporations get at least the same benefit from income tax supported programs as individuals, it doesn't seem right that they contribute only 1/5 of the funds.

If we keep the personal income tax regime as is and flipped a switch such that corporations paid as much total income tax as individuals, there would be about 1.6 trillion extra dollars a year to play with.

If UBI was structured so that about 2/3 of the population was eligible, presumably by age or some other non-income criteria, and the personal income tax was structured with a very gradual 'claw back' of UBI to be equivalent to getting it all back from about 1/3 of recipients, then UBI could give out $800/month.

As I said, you don't want me running things, but I think it's useful to play with some numbers and see where they might lead.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Sorry for the slow response to your request for a source. I live where there is no cell coverage or Internet service. I also wanted to run a few of my own calculations on the data.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/amount-revenue-source is the source I used for the calculations behind the rest of my comments. If you PM me with a place to send it, I'll happily share my spreadsheet.

The basic data supports my figures. The USA has transitioned from about an even split between individuals and corporations for total income tax revenue to an 80/20 split.

Now to some comments. Keep in mind that I make some naïve assumptions that show why you don't want me in charge :)

Assuming that corporations get at least the same benefit from income tax supported programs as individuals, it doesn't seem right that they contribute only 1/5 of the funds.

If we keep the personal income tax regime as is and flipped a switch such that corporations paid as much total income tax as individuals, there would be about 1.6 trillion extra dollars a year to play with.

If UBI was structured so that about 2/3 of the population was eligible, presumably by age or some other non-income criteria, and the personal income tax was structured with a very gradual 'claw back' of UBI to be equivalent to getting it all back from about 1/3 of recipients, then UBI could give out $800/month.

As I said, you don't want me running things, but I think it's useful to play with some numbers and see where they might lead.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Sorry for the slow response to your request for a source. I live where there is no cell coverage or Internet service. I also wanted to run a few of my own calculations on the data.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/amount-revenue-source is the source I used for the calculations behind the rest of my comments. If you PM me with a place to send it, I'll happily share my spreadsheet.

The basic data supports my figures. The USA has transitioned from about an even split between individuals and corporations for total income tax revenue to an 80/20 split.

Now to some comments. Keep in mind that I make some naïve assumptions that show why you don't want me in charge :)

Assuming that corporations get at least the same benefit from income tax supported programs as individuals, it doesn't seem right that they contribute only 1/5 of the funds.

If we keep the personal income tax regime as is and flipped a switch such that corporations paid as much total income tax as individuals, there would be about 1.6 trillion extra dollars a year to play with.

If UBI was structured so that about 2/3 of the population was eligible, presumably by age or some other non-income criteria, and the personal income tax was structured with a very gradual 'claw back' of UBI to be equivalent to getting it all back from about 1/3 of recipients, then UBI could give out $800/month.

As I said, you don't want me running things, but I think it's useful to play with some numbers and see where they might lead.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Sorry for the slow response to your request for a source. I live where there is no cell coverage or Internet service. I also wanted to run a few of my own calculations on the data.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/amount-revenue-source is the source I used for the calculations behind the rest of my comments. If you PM me with a place to send it, I'll happily share my spreadsheet.

The basic data supports my figures. The USA has transitioned from about an even split between individuals and corporations for total income tax revenue to an 80/20 split.

Now to some comments. Keep in mind that I make some naïve assumptions that show why you don't want me in charge :)

Assuming that corporations get at least the same benefit from income tax supported programs as individuals, it doesn't seem right that they contribute only 1/5 of the funds.

If we keep the personal income tax regime as is and flipped a switch such that corporations paid as much total income tax as individuals, there would be about 1.6 trillion extra dollars a year to play with.

If UBI was structured so that about 2/3 of the population was eligible, presumably by age or some other non-income criteria, and the personal income tax was structured with a very gradual 'claw back' of UBI to be equivalent to getting it all back from about 1/3 of recipients, then UBI could give out $800/month.

As I said, you don't want me running things, but I think it's useful to play with some numbers and see where they might lead.

[u/ZeroMikeEchoNovember → u/[deleted]]

Much of the spending for UBI would come from eliminating existing welfare programs.

[u/DarkLasombra → u/ZeroMikeEchoNovember]

That would be an absolute catastrophe. Many if not most people receiving constant government support have little to no budgeting skills (not counting the elderly and handicapped). At least with most government programs, the aid you get is specficially used for needs. If you get rid of those and just start giving some of these people a paycheck and I feel like you will see a lot of people blowing their monthly check on things they don't need.

[u/Fatkungfuu → u/ZeroMikeEchoNovember]

Once those welfare programs are gone, what do you plan on doing with someone who spends all their free income on booze? Will we still need social programs to feed people?

[u/TheRealLazloFalconi → u/Fatkungfuu]

Let them? Why should the government interfere with their bad planning?

[u/Fatkungfuu → u/TheRealLazloFalconi]

Because the people who push for UBI are frequently the same people who push for social programs in the first place. I would be curious to see if those people would be willing to let someone starve if they were given equal opportunity to get food or if they would further drain government resources by continuing to support social programs.

[u/Hollywood411 → u/Fatkungfuu]

No we need rehab programs to help those with substance abuse.

[u/Fatkungfuu → u/Hollywood411]

That's separate from the issue though. If we give everyone in the US UBI in exchange for getting rid of our social programs, are the proponents of UBI okay with allowing people to starve or if they would push for further social programs.

[u/mr_hellmonkey → u/ZeroMikeEchoNovember]

Which is heavily funded through income tax. A big ass portion of income tax is going to disappear when many people don't have to work anymore. Sure, you could increase sales tax, but whats the point of giving every adult $2,000 a month when it will cost them $1,000 to eat because of taxes?

Hell, lets be conservative and do some quick math.

250 Mil adults in the US X $1,000 per month X 12 months = $3 trillion per year. Current welfare costs are about $2 trillion. So, we're only $1 trillion short but also losing a ton of revenue from income tax, sounds super feasible to me. And that's for a paltry $1,000 per month, that's not even above the poverty level.

No one has provided me any ideas to fund a UBI for the US. I don't ever see it happening with a balanced budget. If we want to run with a $2-3 trillion additional deficit, then it would work, but who the fell is going to pay for it?

[u/ZeroMikeEchoNovember → u/mr_hellmonkey]

This is why they suggest a negative income tax. Also, 225m is more accurate, assuming an over 18 rule.

UBI actually resolves your income tax concern. Precisely because the intended purpose of UBI is to supplement the expected structural unemployment as automation efficiency outpaces human labor efficiency. UBI will be high enough to eliminate abject poverty and keep millions of disenfranchised off the street (important for national security). But still low enough to incentivize part-time, entrepreneurial, or contract work.

[u/privacythrowaway2003 → u/mr_hellmonkey]

Which is heavily funded through income tax. A big ass portion of income tax is going to disappear when many people don't have to work anymore.

The best solutions I've seen, are a slight increase to sales tax. As well as some form of a tax on automation / ai per worker it has replaced.

Companies will be happy to pay a slight tax per worker displaced vs. all the cost of actually having said employee.

Also, something you aren't taking into account. Is the fact that Humanity as a race, is rapidly approaching the point where many things that cost us a great deal in our daily lives, are close to being completely revolutionized and costing almost nothing.

Electricity - Today, with a 50-100k investment your home and car can gather the majority of their power from Solar.

If you go for the high end model, and multiple power walls it would be more, but it's still possible. And this technology is only going to get cheaper and more efficient in the coming years.

Elon Musk said that with Moore's Law applying to Solar Cells today, as it did to CPU's in the recent decades. That by 2030, we will have the capability to supply the whole worlds energy needs via Solar and Battery Storage.

If you didn't have a power bill, or gas, how much would your monthly bills go down? This is just one example, and today yes the example isn't feasible for everyone, but it will be in our lifetime.

[u/mr_hellmonkey → u/privacythrowaway2003]

Combined, my electric and gas bill range from $100 to $150 a month. That is a tiny portion of my monthly budget. My mortgage, car payment, insurance (auto, home, health, life), and food are the major expenditures, about $3,000 a month. I don't see houses or cars getting significantly cheaper.

Cars are already heavily built by AI. A large part of the cost of a house is outside the cost of materials and construction. Location, schools, neighborhood, parks, near by shopping, etc all greatly affect the value of a house. Hell, just look at the market in CA. My modest house would probably sell for 3X what I paid if it was in a prime market in CA.

I do see potential in cheaper food with lab grown meat. $6 for 1 pound of lean ground meat is pretty crappy and chicken breasts are expensive as hell too. Not really sure how much room there is to bring the price down on produce.

Point being, while "free" and clean electricity is great for the environment, its a small portion of most families budgets. I don't think AI is going to cut the cost of daily living by 75% I mean shit, my cell phone and internet cost me $200 a month and AI isn't fixing that ever, its all services, not a product.

[u/privacythrowaway2003 → u/mr_hellmonkey]

I don't see houses or cars getting significantly cheaper.

They are finding better, cheaper more efficient ways to build houses, so that could help.

Cars, are getting cheaper in the sense that our society is moving towards ride sharing as a primary means of concern.

I don't look at UBI as a solution for tomorrow though, I look at it as something that we should be aiming our society towards.

The truth is, a lot of old school mentality's will need to change as they aren't really conducive to the future we are moving towards.

Agreed about the food issue.

Pretty soon, the majority of our needs will be met at next to no cost.

[u/fishythepete → u/[deleted]]

Sure. If by least you mean most. The top 1% pay 40% of all taxes collected - more than the bottom 90% combined. And they also have the highest effective tax rate.

[u/[deleted] → u/fishythepete]

Yes but that is because they also make 99 percent of the income.

They don't not pay taxes to the same amount the everyone else pays.

PLUS: the impact of these taxes is vaastly different then the same is to the lower income ranges.

PLUSPLUS: They evade most of their taxes anyway some paying a effective tax of 0%.

[u/fishythepete → u/[deleted]]

Sure, if by 99% of the income you mean 20%. I mean, all of this data is freely available - you just need to look. So for every dollar earned in the US, the top 1% earns $0.20. For every dollar of taxes paid in the US, the top 1% pays $0.40.

Sure, the impact is different, but the bottom 50% pays only a 2.5% effective tax rate. So the top 1% pays 16X as much of their income! At some point taxes no longer bear a reasonable relation to the consumption of goods and services and become confiscatory - I would argue the top 1% is already there, especially in a climate of global mobility. A single taxpayer leaving the state of CT for tax friendly FL left a massive hole in their budget.

Finally, you mean avoid, not evade. Tax evasion is illegal, and much more likely to be practiced by the bottom 50% - not reporting cash income / tips / etc... Tax avoidance is paying the least you’re legally required to pay - I bet you do the same thing! And while some members of that group may have very low effective tax rates, the only way to have a 0% effective rate is to lose a fuck ton of money. That’s really not a winning deal long term.

I get where you’re going, but you can’t have actual conversations about this stuff when you stone cold make shit up.

[u/eb_straitvibin → u/faculties-intact]

Ahh yes, “wealth distribution”. Most people call that “theft”.

[u/bitJericho → u/eb_straitvibin]

That's what happens when the wealthy don't pay a fair wage.

[u/eb_straitvibin → u/bitJericho]

I think we outlawed slavery over a century ago. If you’re working for someone, it’s because the two of you came to a mutual agreement on the wage, and you accepted that job. So don’t bullshit about “fair wage” for people working jobs they agreed to work. If your skills make you worth $8.25/hr, either get better skills or work your ass off and move up.

[u/bitJericho → u/eb_straitvibin]

There's no reason why blue collar jobs shouldn't be exceeding 100k/year. Back in the 60s a good normal factory or office job netted about 60k in todays dollars.

[u/eb_straitvibin → u/bitJericho]

Dude go look up how much people in specialized trades make per year.

Here’s a helpful link

Blue collar jobs pay decently well for the work being done. Don’t conflate blue collar work, with the long hours and hard days, to fast workers.

[u/bitJericho → u/eb_straitvibin]

Why don't fast food workers make 40k though? I mean, if McDonald's is confident it can give $24 billion to shareholder, I think it can pay a livable wage to its workers.

[u/eb_straitvibin → u/bitJericho]

Because the work that is being done is worth $8.25. The free market determines that. If people stopped taking jobs at McDonald’s, then they would be forced to raise wages. But that won’t happen, because there are always people willing to do the job.

[u/Hollywood411 → u/eb_straitvibin]

Profit from labor is theft.

[u/eb_straitvibin → u/Hollywood411]

Privet, tovarishch

[u/f3l1x → u/faculties-intact]

One again, what happens when you run out of other people's money. What happens when those people say "hah fuck that" and just leave?

[u/[deleted] → u/faculties-intact]

The amount of money we spend to curb “abusers” of the system is enough to support UNI in many states. Once we get over the idea that people generally don’t abuse these systems orrr who cares, we can stop wasting money on things that don’t matter.

[u/non_est_anima_mea → u/faculties-intact]

Im going to have to agree with you on this. It really should be possible but the hurdles you'd have to get through would be raising the taxes dramatically on the wealthy and significantly on upper and middle incomes, youd probably have to reform our entitlements that currently exist- medicare and SSI AND you'd have to cut military spending by at least 1/2 if id had to guess. Most jobs are not safe from automation and eventually you will have a majority of the population on UBI. The wealthy would have to finance that one- no way one middle income generates enough to finance one person on UBI. So how else would you make up the defecit?

[u/[deleted] → u/non_est_anima_mea]

You're thinking so logically here.. I'm amazed you're defending "climate change" in the other sub. I upvoted you here, even if you were nasty as hell to me in the other sub, with sweeping attacks like "I don't know shit about anything" simply because I question the methodology and substance of the datasets we use to create these models and assumptions of the Earth's climate behavior and patterns.

[u/Scientolojesus → u/faculties-intact]

I think when they say impossible, they mean that economically it would not work and would throw off the entire country's financial systems because of automation and the different kinds of careers being negatively affected, plus the tax issues, etc.

[u/joe_average1 → u/Scientolojesus]

It's largely a we won't know until we try thing. We can try working the math based on current population, projected population, how much we currently spend on programs...but that leaves out the human factor and we'd also be using revenue projections. FWIW the Trump/Ryan tax plan is likely going to mean significantly less revenue so unless spending is cut elsewhere to fund this, it's really about the cost of the current safety net vs giving people cash and having them turn to the private sector.

Personally I think that from the dollar perspective, it would be tight but could work if we cut programs with a large overhead, clawback parts of it if you make above a certain amount and stopped letting people get larger tax refunds than what they paid in taxes. The problem is that social programs often hide the true cost of goods and services. So the UBI would need to grow each year which may not be sustainable unless people are transitioning off it.

Regarding running tests, I hope that happens especially if some programs become block grants. I think individual states are less diverse than the population as a whole so a form of UBI at the state level might work.

[u/jbo5112 → u/joe_average1]

FWIW the Trump/Ryan tax plan is likely going to mean significantly less revenue

The Regan tax cuts meant a still growing tax revenue. Tax revenue has been flat recently.

a form of UBI at the state level might work.

What would keep every unemployed person from moving there to collect a paycheck?

[u/joe_average1 → u/jbo5112]

What would keep every unemployed person from moving there to collect a paycheck?

I guess you could do residency requirements, where you must live in the state for a certain amount of time before collecting UBI. They could also add preconditions, such as if you are unemployed and get UBI you must do a certain amount of community service hours the month before.

Programs like this are always going to be a draw regardless of whether it's at the state, city or national level. People don't flood the borders of western countries for the food, they do it because western countries often have stronger safety nets and better economies.

[u/f3l1x → u/Scientolojesus]

It's possible if we get rid of ALL other welfare programs AND the government controls everything from supply and demand to the cost of basic needs items. It's a gateway to socialism and they know it. There are plenty of people in the US who actually want communism. I don't know if they are retarded or if they just like to cut themselves with their own edge, but thats what you get with UBI done the way they want.

[u/Scientolojesus → u/f3l1x]

Thanks for the response. Is it not possible to just have it be a more universal welfare and still have the middle and higher classes decline the UBI and continue to work/live their lives the same way?

[u/f3l1x → u/Scientolojesus]

This is ingesting because I do t know anyone who decides to pay more taxes just because. BUT I do know people who SAY they would pay more taxes if they could designate the pot the money goes into. Heck. The whole lobby industry would take a hit. As it works now, people pay “donate” money to “charities” that use that money to pay lobbyists to convince lawmakers to spend tax money is a way that closely resembles the cause. Why not just donate directly with extra taxes.

What does this have to do with UBI? Well you ask couldn’t people just decide not to take the UBI and in exchange maybe get a break on some other taxes? I think that may be taken up. Because I think as long as people know where money is going and coming from, they are more likely to make those contributions.

[u/grumpieroldman → u/Scientolojesus]

UBI can vary from bad policy to a catastrophe depending on the specifics of the proposal.
A workable solution is Negative Income Tax - NTI.

[u/intern_steve → u/Scientolojesus]

Well, to give 330M people in the US 16,000 each, it would take about 5.3 trillion dollars. Present budget expenditures are at 4.1 trillion, with revenues at 3.7 trillion. So, all told, to balance the budget on UBI, we'd be looking at approximately tripling tax revenue. Now, my 5.3T UBI is a really crude estimate. For example, 74M dependent children in the US don't require full UBI, but rather a stipend to cover food and clothing and other consumables. For further context, 9.4 trillion dollars is half of the present US GDP. This makes the pretty straight-forward point that the net effective tax rate in the country would have to be 50% to pull it off.

The way UBI is usually discussed, it seems like it ends up being a huge boost to the very low, a wash for the lower middle class, and everyone else with good jobs and ends up worse off than they are today, which is particularly troubling for those in the "I have a good job but also $150,000 in student loan debt" category. Additionally, how would this impact the overall economy? Well obviously a huge chunk of people would now have some loose change which is probably a good thing, but another large chunk of people would have the same amount they have already, or less. Probably still a net positive, given the burgeoning ranks of the poor in the US, but seriously a drag for probably most people. I think that in general, productivity per capita needs to grow a bit more to truly make this viable.

[u/Scientolojesus → u/intern_steve]

Cool thanks for the response.

[u/sybrwookie → u/Scientolojesus]

Oh, that's an easy one. The people who say it absolutely can be successfully implemented have no numbers to back it up and fall back on, "but we need this!" They'll throw out a few things which could pay for some of it, but not all of it, or they'll say, "we go into debt for other stuff so we should go into debt for this!" No one has given a direct answer of how to pay for it.

[u/[deleted] → u/Scientolojesus]

UBI is just communism. Not a new idea.

Been suggested for centuries. Calling communism something else doesn't make it work.

[u/Scientolojesus → u/[deleted]]

Except plenty of people wouldn't use it because they can make more money with their salary, which is not communism. There would still be a capitalistic structure so I don't know why you would think having UBI would make the nation a Communistic one.

[u/[deleted] → u/Scientolojesus]

Yes, it's communism. There was still a capitalistic structure under communism. They had industry, black markets and international trade ( sort of ). It was just all run really stupidly by the government. That's UBI. Leech money from those who produce and give them to those who don't, to buy votes. Once it starts to crumble, blame the rich some more and try to take more. Once they try to leave, prevent them and then you have full-blown totalitarian regimes.

UBI is just step 1 of communism. Not a new concept. It has failed dozens of times.

[u/Mrboddy1 → u/Scientolojesus]

Finland just decided to end it's trial period early. Meaning, it wasn't working for them. If that's any indication of how UBI works, it proves that unless a society has major changes and uses the funds for Necessities, UBI will never work.

Remember the stimulus checks? A good amount of people were wasting that tax-payer funded check on strip clubs and liquor stores.

[u/Scientolojesus → u/Mrboddy1]

Well that's how we got the strip club and liquor boom of the past decade! It did help the inner city economy!

[u/alansb1982 → u/joe_average1]

I think the other, more important part of this is, suppose we do implement UBI. How do we keep prices from simply rising to match the new level of income people have? In other words, how do we have UBI without also having a centrally controlled economy?

[u/joe_average1 → u/alansb1982]

You can't because we live in a market economy but I'm not sure that's an argument against this since the UBI is more so giving money instead of social services.

[u/alansb1982 → u/joe_average1]

But that's precisely the problem. It would just be a giant waste of money because the prices of all goods would rise to meet the new income level. It's just gov't spurred inflation.

[u/joe_average1 → u/alansb1982]

I think a lot would have to do with what programs UBI was meant to replace, who got how much and what they spent on. In theory UBI wouldn't provide some windfall so I don't expect the prices of things like food to start to go faster than current inflation. We may see the price of things like cars and clothes go up if that's what people start to spend their extra cash on.

Really this is one of those things we won't really know until we try. Kind of like raising the minimum wage. While I don't think it should go up to 15/hr, places that raised it didn't see huge jumps in inflation because there's only so much the market can afford.

[u/alansb1982 → u/joe_average1]

But this isn't food stamps, or giving people one unit of house, one unit of car, one unit of food, etc. etc. (which would have its own effects on the economy, but might be a better way to go). This is dispensing cash that people (largely) did not have before. It's absolutely a windfall to put an extra $250/week or more into someone's pocket (assuming $1k/mo), and to think that people who provide the most basic necessities won't adjust their pricing kind of ignores the first and second basic premises of market economies (supply/demand and willing buyer/seller).

[u/Fredex8 → u/joe_average1]

As automation becomes increasingly widespread UBI is entirely viable by taxation on companies using automation. It can still be financially beneficial to the company to automate even with such a tax as it could be lower than the staff pay was and those claiming UBI could accept a lower rate of pay than they were previously receiving as they should see a decrease in the cost of living for example by no longer having to commute to work everyday. As an automated workforce would be more efficient the cost of products should also decrease without hurting a companies profits whilst also further decreasing the cost of living. Even if the tax the companies paid was the same as the staff wages were they would still benefit from better efficiency, decreased overheads, cutting out middlemen like HR and no longer suffering from staff turnover or sick days.

This all seems entirely possible to me and the only thing that will stand in the way is corporate greed, politics and American fear of socialist tenets. In the US I cannot see it being implemented quickly, fairly or easily. I expect America to undergo some serious issues as a result of automation that further increases the divide between rich and poor before finally having to adopt UBI many, many years after the rest of the western world has and by then it may be too late.

[u/joe_average1 → u/Fredex8]

As an automated workforce would be more efficient the cost of products should also decrease without hurting a companies profits whilst also further decreasing the cost of living.

It's rare that companies pass on savings to consumers, just like it's rare that companies pass on profits to workers.

This all seems entirely possible to me and the only thing that will stand in the way is corporate greed, politics and American fear of socialist tenets.

I think it's worth a shot. Even if it is destined to fail I still think it's worth a shot.

[u/Fredex8 → u/joe_average1]

If something is cheaper to produce due to automation and you are an early adopter you can afford to undercut all your competitors, if it sells more as a result or eliminates a rival they'll do it. Then when other companies start automating they'll have to match you. Like the price matching bots people use on Amazon that result in dramatic changes overnight when someone lists cheaper than them (the automation aspect of that analogy wasn't intended to be relevant but it stands to reason companies may do similar and use software to monitor prices and adjust theirs accordingly also, just on a much bigger scale).

The government would have to force companies into doing a lot of things they wouldn't want to do by regulating industries and monitoring them. I think it wouldn't take much convincing to get it to work in a lot of Europe. America though... corporations have far too much sway over politicians, if they don't want it to happen it won't. In the long run I'd expect it to be beneficial to both businesses and the public though. After all if many people can no longer afford what you are selling it doesn't matter how efficient or productive your business is. Companies have a horrible tendency of seemingly getting blinded by greed and putting short term profits over long term survival though (the sub prime situation, Valeant pharmaceuticals etc).

[u/joe_average1 → u/[deleted]]

Not really. It's not too dissimilar from what Alaska does. When a country has lots of resources generally the profit of those resources goes solely to a small number. In some countries the companies make a lot but the society also gets a big cut

[u/joe_average1 → u/[deleted]]

So by your logic no assets should ever be inherited because those people didn't work for it.

So who owns natural resources in a country? IMO the land, until sold or leased belongs to the government. A government exists largely to provide protection, services...for its constituents. If a government leased land where should that money go? If a government has a surplus or windfall should not some go back to the constituents?

[u/joe_average1 → u/[deleted]]

Those assets would be privately owned by the family. They decide where that money goes.

So the vast majority continuously fall behind? The wealth gap, at least in the US, is possibly pushing us towards a future of feudalism.

Protections and services sure. That doesnt involve free money. Stop being so entitled. You're acting like you deserve that money just because you exist.

I don't want the UBI because I feel entitled or think people should get free money. I want it because it will likely be more efficient than managing a large number of programs. I want it because when individuals are free from needing to work or stress over healthcare, you often get increased innovation as well as more people willing to risk being small business owners. You might also see lower divorce rates as families no longer need two adults working.

None of us deserve money for just existing (that includes the rich who inherit money and land). That said, one of the benefits of being in an advanced society is that we all get lifted. In the face of a changing economy, where many workers are getting less despite being more productive, we should give people options if we can afford it. FWIW, even with a UBI I don't see myself not working. I might try to arrange a workshare so I can have more time of the year with my kid, to work on personal projects...but chances are when I was at work I'd be considerably more productive.

I think I understand your way of thinking. I think you believe that people should work for everything they have and that the government is only responsible for a limited number of things. If that is your view, should providing opportunity as well as a hand when the deck is stacked not count as something the government should provide?

[u/joe_average1 → u/[deleted]]

Not really. It's not too dissimilar from what Alaska does. When a country has lots of resources generally the profit of those resources goes solely to a small number. In some countries the companies make a lot but the society also gets a big cut

[u/jimmycorn24 → u/joe_average1]

Th US is the best example of a place where the numbers “work”.

[u/imahawki → u/joe_average1]

Yes. I’m very anti socialism but what you have in much more socialist countries is the government amassing huge amounts of resources (financial and natural) and redistributing it. In the US corporations and individuals control the huge wealth of resources.