Which is in line with most other UBI experiments. How many more experiments do we need until politicians just acknowledge that this is good policy and we need to start implementing it?
I’m not against it, but where would the money come from?
Who cares? Did you not see how it was cheaper than what we’re currently doing because fewer people wind up in hospitals and prisons?
Where does the more money we are currently spending come from?
Would you ask that if it came to the defense budget?
I would rather the government spent its money on directly helping citizens rather than only giving it to the military industrial complex.
The defense budget doesn’t purport to be a replacement for capitalism.
Neither does a UBI. It merely claims to help people improve their life.
You’re the one bringing capitalism into this.
Then in what sense is it “universal”?
A UBI is universal in the sense that it applies without a means test or a need to work. Traditional social welfare programs have many overly restrictive policies that limit who is eligible. This results in only about ~25% of those who are eligible actually using those programs.
If you are arguing that the linked article is not an example of a UBI, you would be correct as it is a targeted basic income.
It’s universal in that everyone receives it.
Part of it comes from removing existing social support schemes that UBI supplants. Not only can you reallocate those funds, the simplified ruleset should also reduce bureaucratic overhead, which can also go towards funding UBI.
Will that cover all of the additional expenses? Probably not. But it’s a start, at least.
Where would it go?
Partially this is a Cotton Eye Joe reference, but mostly pointing out that people spend money. Spent money is taxed. Huuzah.
Also money isn’t real. You can just print the stuff.
The only issue is the productive capacity of the society doing it.deleted by creator
Rolling back trump’s $2 Trillion tax cuts for the rich and corporations would be a great start. From there, increase taxes on both groups substantially. They will still be rich and still be making record profits, but we will gain social safety nets such as UBI in the process.
Alternatively, we could generate funding for this the same way we did to fund over 20 years of military occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. It could come from the same place we get the funds for subsidizing fossil fuel companies. It could even come from the very same money printers we used to give free PPP loans to “businesses” during the height of the pandemic.
The point being, if it’s good policy, a healthy functioning government does it, and doesn’t waste time asking questions about how we pay for things. Taxes. The answer is always taxes, it’s literally called the Internal Revenue Service.
deleted by creator
That would save money on homelessness services and pig salaries, plus the money would be spent and therefore taxed.
Even if it wouldn’t save money (it would) some taxes have needed to go up for a while now anyway.
What can be reduced or removed with the introduction of UBI that offsets those costs? The need for a significant number of programs would be reduced or eliminated entirely with this type of support.
That in mind, one needs to be sure they don’t give people less under the guise of giving them more, as is usually the case.
A negative lowest tax bracket would be more affordable, since that plus unemployment would only at most make up about 50million or .6 trillion a year.
The main problem with cuting services like housing assistance or food stamps would be that thouse can be more than just a 1000 a month in many places and the government can do things to help with thouse at scale than an individual looking for a apartment can’t.
deleted by creator
$12,000 / year * 600,000 homeless people in the USA =
$7,200,000,000 / yearMaybe let’s start small and help some homeless people get off the streets for the low low price of ~0.1% of the country’s annual spending.
I assume that once you have a stable situation, the supreme gets cut off. As more homeless get off the streets, this number should decrease (but probably not disappear [my cynicism says that we’ll probably never completely solve homelessness]). As more homeless become taxably employed, federal government revenue will increase; spending should decrease as various programs can be throttled back. I’m sure some sociologist-economist can give you a calculated estimated ROI figure on this investment, but I feel that the numbers would probably balance pretty evenly with the added benefit of helping a bunch of people and communities.
UBI would be great but I don’t expect that to occur without a tonne of baby steps
I wonder how that would work by starting only in big cities, and expanding to less populated areas over time.
More money income means people spent, means more taxes, means more money in the treasury, means more money to give away.
By using the money to boost economy where it could be utilized could mean possibility to boost the economy elsewhere, without instantly enrolling everyone at the same time.
numbers dont lie
But assumptions do.
There is no set rule, that a UBI has to be $1000/mo. Even at $100 dollars it would be a huge help to many of us.
That would make it ~$1/3 trillion / yr.
Which would be 5% of the FY 2022 US Budget.
A UBI would not require that Federal taxes go up by a significant rate.
It can come out of state budgets as well, not just federal budgets.
Why are people ignoring that 100% of this money would be pumped back into the economy every month? If you want your economy to boom, you pump money to people with the least means.
People who only focus on “but it’ll cost xxxx per year!” Are completely missing the big picture. This money is taxed twice, because it becomes income, and then sales tax. When it is spent, it directly helps the local economy, which in turn inflates the state economy, which in turn inflates the US economy.
If you want a gilded age of economic growth and prosperity, this is how you do it.
Also, the money can come out of state budgets as well as federal budgets.
The problem is that the economy will eventually crash and the higher the line goes the farther it will fall.
Your suggestion would trigger another great depression
The economy is not going to crash from giving everyone $1000 a month. That’s a delusional take.
deleted by creator
