Split UBI - Split From Breakdown In Civil Order

[Emily Lake]

I'm not afraid to throw some ideas for how Universal Basic Income (UBI) could function effectively, though I'm aware that my ideas might not align with everyone's views, especially Emily's.

Thanks for the start!

Please bear with me, as I'm merely brainstorming and presenting possibilities for consideration.

• Implement significant cuts in military spending to reallocate funds towards domestic welfare programs, including UBI.

I want to set this aside for a moment. That's a whole nuther discussion topic on its own. Suffice to say that in my opinion... significant cuts to the US military would reduce the safety and security of most of the globe. REgardless of whether or not you're a fan of US military policies, the fact is that all of our allies (of which there are many) and most neutral countries rely on the overwhelming force of the US as a deterrent. Pair that with the fact that we're not particularly imperialistic, and haven't sought expansion for about a century, and reducing military funding by too much would be about as brilliant as defunding the police.

• Substantially reduce current welfare expenditures, complete overhaul them, or end them entirely to free up resources for the UBI initiative.

Of course. One would assume that UBI would replace those expenditure in nearly all cases. At a minimum, TANF and housing assistance should be replaced; I'm not certain about medicaid since the cost of medical care is - again - a whole different issue that extends far beyond just welfare expenditures.

• Initiate and sign agreements with as many foreign nations as possible, aiming to eliminate opportunities for the wealthy to conceal funds overseas.

IIRC, the US already does a pretty good job of finding where "hidden" money is. It's not actually the wealthy that are in the business of concealing money, it's criminals. But on the whole, sure, seems like a reasonable plan.

• Classify countries that do not sign these financial transparency agreements as 'Financially Hostile Regimes.' Implement policies where financial dealings with these nations are considered a form of tax evasion.

That's... a really big ask. I get where you're coming from, and the sentiment is good. But the ramifications are enormous. Seriously, China is probably the worst of the worst in terms of transparency when it comes to business arrangements... and it's hard to find any US-based companies that don't have some dealings with China somewhere along their supply chain. And what would be your approach for foreign companies that deal with those countries and also deal with the US?

• Introduce a new tax system focused on the value of individual and corporate assets, providing a sustainable source of funding for UBI.

Not a fan of this. Tacing the value of assets creates a situation where a company can be unprofitable and lose money... but still have a huge tax bill. There's a considerable risk that it puts companies out of business completely, simply by taxing their assets beyond what can be sustained. Similarly, it can be devastating for individuals if you tax their assets irrespective of income. Property taxes are fairly close to being taxes on assets - my dad almost lost his house because he couldn't pay the property taxes, even though the house was completely owned and had no mortgage at all. If you tax a person's assets and that tax exceeds their income, then you essentially force them into destitution.

As an alternative, I would suggest some significant alterations to how corporate taxes are calculated. For example, all personnel costs (salaries, benefits, bonuses, etc) are considered administrative expenses deducted prior to taxation. There's probably a pretty solid argument that could be made to cap the amount of salary that can be treated as administrative expenses. One could also argue that bonuses above a certain amount must come from after-tax corporate profit. Limitations on non-wage compensation should probably be paired with that, just so we don't end up with shell games for CEOs

• Offer UBI exclusively to individuals and families whose income falls below a predetermined threshold.

Well that makes it not UBI The whole point of UBI is that it's universal - everyone gets it, regardless of need.

Honestly, I'm much more inclined to support a threshold-based income supplement than I am UBI. I think it's much more manageable and more likely to be reasonably sustainable. Especially if the threshold tapers instead of being a cliff, that way there's no "stupid point" where a person or family comes out better if they make less income.

• Ensure the UBI amount is calibrated to be just above the poverty line, sufficient to support basic living standards without discouraging participation in the workforce.

Well, first off the poverty line doesn't support basic living standards. 2024 Poverty Level is $14,580. Unless you're a hermit living in a cave, cutting your own firewood and growing your own food... that won't even cover a shitty apartment and minimal food. But I get the intent. And honestly, that's where I end up stuck.

Specifically, it's the "without discouraging participation in the workforce" part of it that ends up as a problem for me. Because no matter how hard you try to find that magic line... there will still be *some* people who choose not to work. Even if you did set it at FPL, you're going to find a dozen people out there who are making $15K right now at a job they hate, and who - despite what seems rational to us in this discussion - will say "hey, I'm no worse off than I am now if I just totally quit this shitty job, and then I have free time to sit at home and play video games all day instead!". You and I and everyone else in this thread might think they're the dumbest dummies that ever dumbed... but that doesn't make them nonexistent.

The key question here is "how many" and "for what income level"? Because it's not like it's a fixed number. If your UBI is at $15K, it's probably not going to be very many. If your UBI is at $30K, it's going to be more people. If your UBI is at $90K, it's probably going to be quite a few.

And since UBI is funded by taxes, each of those people who leave the workforce reduce the amount of taxes collected. Sure, income tax isn't the only tax out there... but it's a really really big one. When people quit working, they can't be taxed.

That's where my harping on about the sustainability comes into play. There are a LOT of assumptions involved in any sort of modeling for UBI, but there are four that IMO are critical:

• The UBI being dispensed
• The portion of people who will exit the work-force at that UBI level
• The income tax percentage applied to those who continue to work
• How much does the following year's tax level need to increase to offset the workforce loss... and what does that do to the marginal value of work?

That last one is where it gets really tricky, and where I end up getting prickly at people giving wishy-washy answers without really thinking it through.

I mean, if we're gonna talk UBI we have to start the discussion somewhere. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Yep, and I appreciate you jumping in!

 

[Gospel]

I want to set this aside for a moment. That's a whole nuther discussion topic on its own. Suffice to say that in my opinion... significant cuts to the US military would reduce the safety and security of most of the globe. REgardless of whether or not you're a fan of US military policies, the fact is that all of our allies (of which there are many) and most neutral countries rely on the overwhelming force of the US as a deterrent. Pair that with the fact that we're not particularly imperialistic, and haven't sought expansion for about a century, and reducing military funding by too much would be about as brilliant as defunding the police.

Two things. Measured reductions and global responsibility sharing. I'll conclude my thoughts here for the moment. While I don't have the precise data to calculate the specifics, I am convinced that with the vast amount of funds in circulation, there are undoubtedly some inefficiencies. Additionally, it seems plausible that certain countries might be less inclined to contribute their fair share, relying on the assumption that the U.S. will continue to shoulder the majority of financial responsibilities.

Of course. One would assume that UBI would replace those expenditure in nearly all cases. At a minimum, TANF and housing assistance should be replaced; I'm not certain about medicaid since the cost of medical care is - again - a whole different issue that extends far beyond just welfare expenditures.

We could start with a gradual phase-out of certain welfare services, closely monitored to assess the impact on recipients. This would allow for adjustments in UBI amounts and the scope of remaining welfare services based on real-world outcomes. Medical Care is a whole other beast, thus why I only mentioned welfare.

Well that makes it not UBI The whole point of UBI is that it's universal - everyone gets it, regardless of need.

Honestly, I'm much more inclined to support a threshold-based income supplement than I am UBI. I think it's much more manageable and more likely to be reasonably sustainable. Especially if the threshold tapers instead of being a cliff, that way there's no "stupid point" where a person or family comes out better if they make less income.

Indeed, you make a fair point. While some individuals may not directly require it, the availability of this support remains available to everyone, should they ever need it. Moreover, even if someone is financially secure and might not personally benefit from it, there's a broader benefit to society when others are supported. The well-being and stability of the community as a whole can have positive ripple effects that indirectly benefit everyone, regardless of their personal financial situation.

Well, first off the poverty line doesn't support basic living standards. 2024 Poverty Level is $14,580. Unless you're a hermit living in a cave, cutting your own firewood and growing your own food... that won't even cover a shitty apartment and minimal food. But I get the intent. And honestly, that's where I end up stuck.

Specifically, it's the "without discouraging participation in the workforce" part of it that ends up as a problem for me. Because no matter how hard you try to find that magic line... there will still be *some* people who choose not to work. Even if you did set it at FPL, you're going to find a dozen people out there who are making $15K right now at a job they hate, and who - despite what seems rational to us in this discussion - will say "hey, I'm no worse off than I am now if I just totally quit this shitty job, and then I have free time to sit at home and play video games all day instead!". You and I and everyone else in this thread might think they're the dumbest dummies that ever dumbed... but that doesn't make them nonexistent.

The key question here is "how many" and "for what income level"? Because it's not like it's a fixed number. If your UBI is at $15K, it's probably not going to be very many. If your UBI is at $30K, it's going to be more people. If your UBI is at $90K, it's probably going to be quite a few.

And since UBI is funded by taxes, each of those people who leave the workforce reduce the amount of taxes collected. Sure, income tax isn't the only tax out there... but it's a really really big one. When people quit working, they can't be taxed.

That's where my harping on about the sustainability comes into play. There are a LOT of assumptions involved in any sort of modeling for UBI, but there are four that IMO are critical:

• The UBI being dispensed
• The portion of people who will exit the work-force at that UBI level
• The income tax percentage applied to those who continue to work
• How much does the following year's tax level need to increase to offset the workforce loss... and what does that do to the marginal value of work?

That last one is where it gets really tricky, and where I end up getting prickly at people giving wishy-washy answers without really thinking it through.

I think a dynamic model that can adapt to economic changes and workforce behaviors would work. Something like what the Fed does with interest rates. It’s not about setting a fixed UBI level but rather having a flexible system that can adjust to economic conditions, labor market dynamics, and tax revenue flows. Implementing this, considering all the available data, is certainly a complex task that exceeds my expertise. However, given the range of ambitious and intricate projects we're already successfully managing, I believe that achieving this is not impossible.

Yep, and I appreciate you jumping in!

And I appreciate you not jumping on me.

 

[Emily Lake]

Of course. One would assume that UBI would replace those expenditure in nearly all cases. At a minimum, TANF and housing assistance should be replaced; I'm not certain about medicaid since the cost of medical care is - again - a whole different issue that extends far beyond just welfare expenditures.

We could start with a gradual phase-out of certain welfare services, closely monitored to assess the impact on recipients. This would allow for adjustments in UBI amounts and the scope of remaining welfare services based on real-world outcomes. Medical Care is a whole other beast, thus why I only mentioned welfare.

Gradual transition makes a lot of sense. That would allow for management and mitigation of many of the potential risks - especially since there are a LOT of uncertainties involved.

Well that makes it not UBI The whole point of UBI is that it's universal - everyone gets it, regardless of need.

Honestly, I'm much more inclined to support a threshold-based income supplement than I am UBI. I think it's much more manageable and more likely to be reasonably sustainable. Especially if the threshold tapers instead of being a cliff, that way there's no "stupid point" where a person or family comes out better if they make less income.

Indeed, you make a fair point. While some individuals may not directly require it, the availability of this support remains available to everyone, should they ever need it. Moreover, even if someone is financially secure and might not personally benefit from it, there's a broader benefit to society when others are supported. The well-being and stability of the community as a whole can have positive ripple effects that indirectly benefit everyone, regardless of their personal financial situation.

I agree, and I definitely support ideas around income supplementation and subsidization. And let's be honest, what we have in terms of welfare assistance isn't great. Actually, I want to halfway take that back - in many states, the programs aren't bad, but they're bureaucratic nightmares! Once you figure out how to navigate the system to find what assistance is available and how to access it... the assistance is decent. But trying to figure it out is flat out insane. I don't know how many hours I spent trying to figure out how to get my dad assistance with electricity and water. I knew it was available, I even knew what county services to contact, but it was turtles all the way down. And so many of those basics are set up in a way that ends up punishing people for the crime of being poor, it's unconscionable. "Can't make your electricity payment? Yeah, we're going to shut it off, then we're going to charge you another $200 on top of the amount you already can't pay to get it turned back on again! That makes perfect sense!"

I think a dynamic model that can adapt to economic changes and workforce behaviors would work. Something like what the Fed does with interest rates. It’s not about setting a fixed UBI level but rather having a flexible system that can adjust to economic conditions, labor market dynamics, and tax revenue flows. Implementing this, considering all the available data, is certainly a complex task that exceeds my expertise. However, given the range of ambitious and intricate projects we're already successfully managing, I believe that achieving this is not impossible.

I don't think it's impossible, but I do think it's very complicated. Mostly, I think that there are inherent risks that could have immensely negative ramifications if there isn't enough forethought and safeguards in place.

I get frustrated, because a lot of people who are staunch supporters of UBI are sold on the concept alone, and it ends up seeming like they want to ignore the potential risks, or pretend they don't exist. It's kind of like college kids who declare themselves communists and then want to preach the wonders of communism. I mean, yeah - it's a really nice and attractive idea... but in practice it's way more complicated and way more unstable than those kids think it is. Mostly because they don't think about it, they don't think about human nature and how susceptible marxism is to opportunistic exploitation. UBI is in the same boat for me - it's hypothetically possible, and it's a really nice idea. But I think it's very likely sensitive to irrational or exploitative behavior... and if there's too much of that, I think there's a large risk of it collapsing in much the same way that every real-world implementation of communism has collapsed. Even if most people are awesome, some people are crap. And it only takes a little bit of poo to ruin the pie.

Yep, and I appreciate you jumping in!

And I appreciate you not jumping on me.

Contrary to perception, I think you're a very cool dude, and I have a lot of respect for you. I think about 90% of our butting heads is a matter of communication style, not massive differences in principle or intent.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Let's take a step back and remember that humans are animals. And animals must put forth effort in order to continue their own survival. Animals must forage or hunt for their food, they must migrate or hibernate to survive the winter. They must compete with other animals, even with others of their own species, often in very bloody ways.

Non-human animals don't create machines that can do work for them so that's a pretty silly metaphor.

We don't have machines that can do all of our work. But hey, if you want to tax the ever loving hell out of companies that use automation in order to support incomes for the people those machines have replaced, be my guest.

Nice bit of straw you've got there.

That's a weird response.

I point out that humans, just like other animals, must expend effort to ensure their own survival. Our efforts take a different form, but it's still effort.

You respond by implying that humans can just create machines to do all of our work for us, as if that is somehow an answer that makes sense in any way at all.

And when I respond by pointing out that machines cannot do all of our work, and that replacing human workers with machines has exacerbated income disparity and suggest that you should increase taxes on companies that replace humans with automation... you call it a strawman?

How about this - how about you elaborate on why you think machines is somehow an answer to all of our needs, so that humans don't ever have to expend any effort at all... and then perhaps we can have something to talk about.

It's not possible now. Someday it probably will be possible. It's not an unreasonable hypothetical, but it is not a current solution.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It makes me frustrated and angry to see the claim that “most people can climb out of being poor” being made by people who have never had to do so.
IME, people making such claims are projecting that poor people are playing on the same field that they are.
THEY’RE NOT.

Some of us actually did climb out of being poor.

Some circumstances create greater barriers - mental health disorders, physical disabilities, those are certainly something that can prevent a person from improving their circumstances.

On the other hand, I get tired of the heart-before-brain approach wherein all poor people are noble victims of an unfair system being kept down by evil Mr. Moneybags.

Some people are poor because of their choices. My sister and I came from the same household, same parents, same welfare-assisted, food-stamp using, literal government cheese eating consumers of neighborhood hand-me-downs and thrift store back-to-school adventures. We've ended up in very different places, because we've made very different choices. My sister's choices have almost always placed short-term enjoyment over long-term stability. FFS, she's 46 years old, and still gets financial support from me and our parents. For christmas, my parents gave her $200, I gave her $100. She has no savings. And while $300 isn't a ton, it's something. But instead of sticking that in her bank account... she went to Kohls and spent it all in a couple of hours.

You were poor--a state of a lack of money. She is in poverty--a mental state that traps you into never being able to climb out.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Honestly, I don't get why it's so much to ask for you supporters of UBI to actually lay out the foundations, the assumptions, and to demonstrate the sustainability of your idea.

I think you guys don't believe me when I say that my objection is based on it not being sustainable, not on any principle. If you can show me that it will work, long term, with reasonable and realistic assumptions... I'm your gal, out there with my signs marching to make it happen. But you've got to actually show me, not just give me empty platitudes wrapped in insinuated insults.

It's what I keep saying about the infinite pool of money thinking. There is never any attempt made to make a remotely reasonable analysis of what something would cost vs what could be taxed, it's a matter of faith that there is enough. But the only way you can know if there's enough without doing the math is if it's infinite.

Faith is the heart of religion. There doesn't have to be anything remotely resembling a deity for a position to become religious.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That's one of the more incomprehensible statements I've seen. Can you elaborate on what you're trying to say here?

I think it is pretty simple - the only way any UBI program could end up destroying an economy is if the voters stood around and watched the destruction occur and did nothing.

We are already seeing it in Europe. Voters demanding unsustainable retirement programs.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Some of us actually did climb out of being poor.

Been there, done that. Been lucky, so not for enough years to establish a spiral. Still enough to become aware of the oppressive conditions that set in on a person, almost as if the whole system is set up to trap people, and reward those who can take advantage of that fact.

I don't believe it's set up to be a trap. Rather, reality is a trap--to climb out requires long term thinking. And that means denying short term desires. And reality has a habit of sometimes shoving you down the ladder a bit--merely staying stationary means you in time move down.

 

[laughing dog]

That's one of the more incomprehensible statements I've seen. Can you elaborate on what you're trying to say here?

I think it is pretty simple - the only way any UBI program could end up destroying an economy is if the voters stood around and watched the destruction occur and did nothing.

We are already seeing it in Europe. Voters demanding unsustainable retirement programs.

I was unaware Europe's economy is destroyed. Would you provide a date for its destruction?

 

[laughing dog]

The USA has about 1/3 of billion people. The current poverty level is less than$15k for s single person . Making 15k the UBI yields $5 trillion in transfers. Current US GDP snd Personal income is about $24 trillion. So $ 5 trillion is arithmetically available.

Of course, there are various current transfer programs (disability, part of social security, food stamps, etc…) that would no longer be needed. And depending on the household size and earned income, some UBI would be taxed. A conservative estimate of those savings is at least 1/2 trillion. Yielding a net revenue need of 4.5 trillion. It is certainly in the realm of non-destructive taxation to this observer.

Of course, it would require major legislative overalls of many programs and the tax code.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm not afraid to throw some ideas for how Universal Basic Income (UBI) could function effectively, though I'm aware that my ideas might not align with everyone's views, especially Emily's.

Please bear with me, as I'm merely brainstorming and presenting possibilities for consideration.

• Implement significant cuts in military spending to reallocate funds towards domestic welfare programs, including UBI.

Unfortunately, the only thing more expensive than a good military is a poor military.

• Substantially reduce current welfare expenditures, complete overhaul them, or end them entirely to free up resources for the UBI initiative.

Inherent in UBI.

• Initiate and sign agreements with as many foreign nations as possible, aiming to eliminate opportunities for the wealthy to conceal funds overseas.

We've already gone too far in this direction. Americans are generally not welcome in the financial systems of any country that has made such agreements with the US--the banks do not want the reporting headaches. Besides, that's not the main way money is hidden--rather, it's hidden by not having it in your name in the first place. Most items on a personal tax return are double-entry accounting, the IRS can match what you said you got with what others said they gave you. However, this becomes effectively impossible in the business realm.

• Classify countries that do not sign these financial transparency agreements as 'Financially Hostile Regimes.' Implement policies where financial dealings with these nations are considered a form of tax evasion.

And what happens to expats, dual citizens and even those who have enough connection to a nation that having local financial systems is useful? China is becoming increasingly problematic to function in without a Chinese bank account--there are some kludges to allow foreigners some access to the system but as with most of their support for non-locals it's pretty kludgy. Businesses like it because it prevents sticky-fingered employees and a vending machine that has no cash and no card reader is much less inviting to the criminal element. In the past you could function fairly well anywhere in the world so long as you could identify the goods you wanted and didn't need to negotiate. (Admittedly, it proved a bit harder in Iran, 1975--because at least then they did not use our digits.) I've already has the experience in China (and the last we were there was 2019--it's gotten much worse since) of having no problem identifying the goods or the price but having no way of actually purchasing it. This was airside in PVG, I couldn't just go elsewhere.

• Introduce a new tax system focused on the value of individual and corporate assets, providing a sustainable source of funding for UBI.

Good luck figuring the value of many assets.

• Offer UBI exclusively to individuals and families whose income falls below a predetermined threshold.

Which makes it not UBI.

• Ensure the UBI amount is calibrated to be just above the poverty line, sufficient to support basic living standards without discouraging participation in the workforce.

I mean, if we're gonna talk UBI we have to start the discussion somewhere. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

US poverty line: $14,580. US Population: 331.9M. Total: $4.839T. Total federal revenue (2022--the latest data I'm seeing) was $5.03T. And $1.51T of that was Social Security--you going to take people's retirement away??? And the military you want to gut to pay for it was $801B. And what about the $944.3B in Medicare--you going to take away their healthcare? And the $805.7B for Medicaid? Healthcare is on top of that $14.6k for poverty line--this year I'm going to be paying over $8k for about the cheapest exchange plan offered here. Even if the government did nothing else you need another $3T in revenue to fund it. Just to fund UBI + the big three you need to raise taxes by about 50%. Real world, you need to double them. Think that's viable? And note that we still haven't provided any healthcare for many workers.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I have neither the data, resources or inclination to build a reasonable workable model.
Whether or not an UBI program is “ sustainable” is an empirical question.

You've got to be kidding. You, an economist, don't have the info needed to even set up a preliminary model... but you're good with supporting something based on what... wishful thinking? And your response is that it's an empirical question whether or not a tax-based system for giving everyone free fucking money is sustainable? FFS, you put sustainable in scare quotes!

Unfortunately, an awful lot of economists are completely blinded by their faith.

Sustainability is a fundamentally important element of any federally funded social benefit. Hell, part of the reason that the rates for ACA coverage are so high is because the government didn't bother to consider whether or not their plans were "sustainable" and ended up reneging on their commitment to fund both risk corridors and the cost-share reduced plans that insurers are still required to offer. When they said "oops, we didn't realize it would cost so much, we're just not going to pay for it", it left insurers having to raise premiums on EVERYONE in order to cover those costs.

Doesn't the IRS still pick up the tab for the subsidies?

That's one of the more incomprehensible statements I've seen. Can you elaborate on what you're trying to say here?

I think it is pretty simple - the only way any UBI program could end up destroying an economy is if the voters stood around and watched the destruction occur and did nothing.

Sure, sure, because voters have so much power over shitty stupid policies and legislation that congress pushes out.

Voters are usually guilty of short-term thinking. The dollar saved today gets spent on someone else rather than available for the future. We already see multiple countries in Europe where the voters prefer candidates that say nice things rather than candidates that tell the truth.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Some of us actually did climb out of being poor.

Been there, done that. Been lucky, so not for enough years to establish a spiral. Still enough to become aware of the oppressive conditions that set in on a person, almost as if the whole system is set up to trap people, and reward those who can take advantage of that fact.

Be realistic and honest. How much of it was actually luck - as in truly unaffected by what you did or what choices you made? How much of it was your ability to recognize an opportunity and to reach for it, to make good decisions with the circumstances that came your way?

It doesn't even take recognizing an opportunity, just making good decisions with your circumstances. And so much of bad "luck" comes down to not planning ahead.

It's idiotic to attribute every good thing in one's life to personal effort. It's equally idiotic to attribute every good thing in one's life to pure luck. And it's beyond idiotic to attribute all bad things in one's life to nothing by bad luck. Don't discount the importance of decision making.

Assuming it's luck means you don't have to blame yourself for failure.

 

[bilby]

And $1.51T of that was Social Security--you going to take people's retirement away???

And replace it with a different source of income?

Fuck yes.

The fundamental idea of a UBI is that everyone gets it, and no one gets ANY other money from government. It replaces ALL other direct payments of cash to citizens.

When you can prove that it doesn't work if:

A) You don't scrap all the other cash payments to citizens; and/or

B) You don't impose sufficient taxes to avoid it causing runaway inflation

... you haven't proven it doesn't work. You've proven that something similar, but designed to fail, doesn't work.

Well, duh.

 

[Swammerdami]

Gradual transition makes a lot of sense. That would allow for management and mitigation of many of the potential risks - especially since there are a LOT of uncertainties involved.

Transition to UBI would present difficulties whether done gradually or not. This is yet another reason to prefer my approach!

Many people with serious financial problems are there because of medical issues, or the high cost of drugs. This is true even with ACA. If good medical care (and pharmaceuticals) were available for free, many people in poverty would no longer need UBI at all! I am NOT a Marxist, but "to each according to his needs" makes sense. The idea of giving everyone $2000 with some people needing to spend it all on medical care while others spend it on whiskey or other recreations is just silly.

Transition to free medical care would be difficult. The ACA system caters to insurance companies. Instead of recognizing that health insurance makes no sense if the government is paying for everything, ACA was designed to further enrich insurance companies. But how to do a transition? There are many tens of thousands of people employed by health insurance companies; would they all lose their jobs?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

On the matter of wealth tax, proposed if income tax doesn't raise enough revenue: In Warren's plan, the wealth tax is Zero on the first $50 million of wealth. This threshold is high enough, I think, that you needn't worry your Uncle George the small farm owner will be impoverished by a wealth tax.

 

[bigfield]

Gradual transition makes a lot of sense. That would allow for management and mitigation of many of the potential risks - especially since there are a LOT of uncertainties involved.

Transition to UBI would present difficulties whether done gradually or not. This is yet another reason to prefer my approach!

Many people with serious financial problems are there because of medical issues, or the high cost of drugs. This is true even with ACA. If good medical care (and pharmaceuticals) were available for free, many people in poverty would no longer need UBI at all! I am NOT a Marxist, but "to each according to his needs" makes sense. The idea of giving everyone $2000 with some people needing to spend it all on medical care while others spend it on whiskey or other recreations is just silly.

Wealthy countries with far better healthcare systems than the US, such as the UK, still have huge numbers of people living in poverty. There are many factors besides healthcare costs that make it hard for people to pull together enough money to get by.

You can make life much easier for all of those people, whatever their problems are, by guaranteeing access to a basic income.

That doesn't stop you from fixing the USA's fucked healthcare system. Nor does it stop you from fixing other causes of poverty, like access to housing, a living wage for workers, good education etc. But even if you fix those things, you'll still need a UBI.

Transition to free medical care would be difficult. The ACA system caters to insurance companies. Instead of recognizing that health insurance makes no sense if the government is paying for everything, ACA was designed to further enrich insurance companies. But how to do a transition? There are many tens of thousands of people employed by health insurance companies; would they all lose their jobs?

Yes, some of them would lose their jobs. If only there was some way to ensure they had money to meet their basic needs until they found another job.

 

[Swammerdami]

Transition to UBI would present difficulties whether done gradually or not. This is yet another reason to prefer my approach!

Many people with serious financial problems are there because of medical issues, or the high cost of drugs. This is true even with ACA. If good medical care (and pharmaceuticals) were available for free, many people in poverty would no longer need UBI at all! I am NOT a Marxist, but "to each according to his needs" makes sense. The idea of giving everyone $2000 with some people needing to spend it all on medical care while others spend it on whiskey or other recreations is just silly.

Wealthy countries with far better healthcare systems than the US, such as the UK, still have huge numbers of people living in poverty. There are many factors besides healthcare costs that make it hard for people to pull together enough money to get by.

You can make life much easier for all of those people, whatever their problems are, by guaranteeing access to a basic income.

Yes. I should have emphasized that my healthcare suggestion was NOT a complete solution to poverty, but the FIRST step in a way to comply with Emily's desire to implement the redistribution (whatever its form) GRADUALLY. Health-care improvement can be done INDEPENDENTLY of welfare reform or other components of UBI, or a UBI-like approach. And eliminating the HUGE overheads of health insurance and other health-system flaws is good, regardless of other details of the UBI or UBI-like approach.

Implementing a single piece of my plan, whether it be single-payer medical, subsidized child-care or whatever, may be difficult but not impossible. On the other hand, I'm not sure that "gradual" adoption of cash-only UBI makes sense.

 

[Elixir]

so much of bad "luck" comes down to not planning ahead.

So much of not planning ahead comes down to the immediate urgency of food, shelter and clothing.

Rather, reality is a trap--to climb out requires long term thinking.

Okay so the more fortunate of us (whose good fortune may or may not be an outcome of good planning) can sit by and be passively complicit in, and supportive of the trapping process because it’s a feature of “reality”.
Got it.

The idea of giving everyone $2000 with some people needing to spend it all on medical care while others spend it on whiskey or other recreations is just silly.

You telling me whiskey isn’t medical care?

 

[Emily Lake]

How about this - how about you elaborate on why you think machines is somehow an answer to all of our needs, so that humans don't ever have to expend any effort at all... and then perhaps we can have something to talk about.

It's not possible now. Someday it probably will be possible. It's not an unreasonable hypothetical, but it is not a current solution.

Meh. I don't think it's possible. You can believe whatever you want to believe.

At a minimum... someone is going to have to be able to design the machines and design the software for the machines. If everyone is dependent on machines for our entire survival, then the people who design the machines are going to have to expend effort for both their own survival as well as being held accountable for the survival of the entire species.

I suppose if you design machines that can design machines, and then turn everything over to those machines and just happily accept being a pet for the rest of our existence, it's "possible".

 

[Emily Lake]

The USA has about 1/3 of billion people. The current poverty level is less than$15k for s single person . Making 15k the UBI yields $5 trillion in transfers. Current US GDP snd Personal income is about $24 trillion. So $ 5 trillion is arithmetically available.

Of course, there are various current transfer programs (disability, part of social security, food stamps, etc…) that would no longer be needed. And depending on the household size and earned income, some UBI would be taxed. A conservative estimate of those savings is at least 1/2 trillion. Yielding a net revenue need of 4.5 trillion. It is certainly in the realm of non-destructive taxation to this observer.

Of course, it would require major legislative overalls of many programs and the tax code.

Thanks for a starting point

With respect to your premise...

• Why would you tax UBI? That seems like double-dipping, and kind of defeats the purpose. Or is this just short-hand language, and you actually mean that for some people, the UBI would push their income above the 0% bracket, so that previously untaxed incomes would now be taxed?
• Why choose FPL? FPL doesn't provide a livable income except perhaps in a very few places in the US.
• Are you assuming that the workforce will remain unchanged in future years? Are you assuming that nobody will choose to no longer work? At a minimum, I would think that at least some families will decide that it's more advantageous for one parent to stop working and stay home with the kids, and that would impact the taxable base in future years.

My biggest problem with your example is that the math only works because you're using the ENTIRE GDP as your base. Your estimate using FPL, with offsets for sunset welfare programs, results in a need for $4.5 trillion. In 2022, the entire government revenue was just a bit over $5 trillion. To make your premise work, your basically assuming an increase to the tax rate of 25% across the board from it's present levels, for all taxes of every type.