$500 a month for free: Data show how people spent the money

[Worldtraveller]

A couple years old but...

A $1,000 per month cash handout would grow the economy by $2.5 trillion, new study says

Giving every adult in the United States a $1,000 cash handout per month would grow the economy by $2.5 trillion by 2025, according to a new study on universal basic income.

The report was released in August by the left-leaning Roosevelt Institute. Roosevelt research director Marshall Steinbaum, Michalis Nikiforos at Bard College's Levy Institute, and Gennaro Zezza at the University of Cassino and Southern Lazio in Italy co-authored the study.

The study made economic forecasts for three proposals: a full universal basic income in which every adult gets $1,000 a month ($12,000 a year), a partial basic income in which every adult gets $500 a month ($6,000 a year), and a child allowance in which parents get $250 a month ($3,000 a year).

The larger the universal basic income, the greater the benefit to the economy, according to the report.

More in the link.

I think I tried to run the numbers on this and it didn't pan out (not enough actual GDP to do this). However, if you limit it to individuals below a threshold of ~$50k (maybe ~$70k when you add in 2 kids, I'd have to find my numbers) annual income, it does work, and you only have go back to the taxes we had prior to the shitgibbon's huge cut.

 

[Jarhyn]

A couple years old but...

A $1,000 per month cash handout would grow the economy by $2.5 trillion, new study says

Giving every adult in the United States a $1,000 cash handout per month would grow the economy by $2.5 trillion by 2025, according to a new study on universal basic income.

The report was released in August by the left-leaning Roosevelt Institute. Roosevelt research director Marshall Steinbaum, Michalis Nikiforos at Bard College's Levy Institute, and Gennaro Zezza at the University of Cassino and Southern Lazio in Italy co-authored the study.

The study made economic forecasts for three proposals: a full universal basic income in which every adult gets $1,000 a month ($12,000 a year), a partial basic income in which every adult gets $500 a month ($6,000 a year), and a child allowance in which parents get $250 a month ($3,000 a year).

The larger the universal basic income, the greater the benefit to the economy, according to the report.

More in the link.

I think I tried to run the numbers on this and it didn't pan out (not enough actual GDP to do this). However, if you limit it to individuals below a threshold of ~$50k (maybe ~$70k when you add in 2 kids, I'd have to find my numbers) annual income, it does work, and you only have go back to the taxes we had prior to the shitgibbon's huge cut.

Literally everyone except an *illionare would have some use for 1000 bucks a month, that would go back into the economy. I'll call bullshit on those "numbers" of yours.

 

[PyramidHead]

I think I tried to run the numbers on this and it didn't pan out (not enough actual GDP to do this). However, if you limit it to individuals below a threshold of ~$50k (maybe ~$70k when you add in 2 kids, I'd have to find my numbers) annual income, it does work, and you only have go back to the taxes we had prior to the shitgibbon's huge cut.

Literally everyone except an *illionare would have some use for 1000 bucks a month, that would go back into the economy.the pockets of landlords I'll call bullshit on those "numbers" of yours.

Fixed a typo

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Well, the problem with the study is that it isn't starting with all things being equal. If you gave me $500 six months ago (before my wife and I got devastated financially due to her mother's prolonged death), we probably would have just used it for a couple massages and a really good dinner/night out on the town. Now every penny would go to relieve our debt.

I'm not sure exactly what that would prove, other than a puddle fills the hole it's in.

 

[Worldtraveller]

I think I tried to run the numbers on this and it didn't pan out (not enough actual GDP to do this). However, if you limit it to individuals below a threshold of ~$50k (maybe ~$70k when you add in 2 kids, I'd have to find my numbers) annual income, it does work, and you only have go back to the taxes we had prior to the shitgibbon's huge cut.

Literally everyone except an *illionare would have some use for 1000 bucks a month, that would go back into the economy. I'll call bullshit on those "numbers" of yours.

All I calculated was the estimated number of people below a certain threshold that would could afford to pay at whatever the rate was (it may have been higher than this, closer to $20k/year) and this part is important: based on the current federal tax income, and I don't remember what percent I used, but it was around 20-25%, so still less than we spend on the military. It wasn't bullshit, but I was trying to keep it within the bounds of the discussion at the time. So back the fuck up. It had nothing to do with the who could use the money, I was just showing that yes, the government could afford it without "crippling the economy", as people like LP were arguing. I think the only other thing I took into account was that much of this spending could come from medicare, food stamps, etc, since it was a UBI and that would be covered by it. The numbers here would probably be much easier to 'afford', and would go directly into the economy.