Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can imagine someone on disability getting $2,000 a month being unhappy about this after having paid into Social Security for years.
From the article:
"People can make up to $30,000 in earned income without losing a penny of the grant. After $30,000, a graduated surtax reimburses part of the grant, which would drop to $6,500 (but no lower) when an individual reaches $60,000 of earned income. Why should people making good incomes retain any part of the UBI? Because they will be losing Social Security and Medicare, and they need to be compensated.
The UBI is to be financed by getting rid of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, Supplemental Security Income, housing subsidies, welfare for single women and every other kind of welfare and social-services program, as well as agricultural subsidies and corporate welfare. As of 2014, the annual cost of a UBI would have been about $200 billion cheaper than the current system. By 2020, it would be nearly a trillion dollars cheaper."
There won't be a sensible UBI that is *cheaper* than our current welfare system, because it is impossible.
People who are truly disabled and unable to work should get more than the meager starter UBI. It's only enough for someone to live in poverty, with the intention that they would still be able to earn money doing something.
Social Security and Medicare could be eventually phased out, but they will not be replaced by a UBI at the beginning.
And the surtax for higher earners seems like a slippery slope. Just give everyone a UBI and tax it as income.
Assuming the federal government actually surrendered its Welfare Programs, you'd only have $1.3 TRILLION. You're still $900 Billion short.
Short of what? You must be assuming that it will not require any tax increase. Most civilized countries already tax more than would be necessary, and they don't have the advantages of a UBI.
"People can make up to $30,000 in earned income without losing a penny of the grant. After $30,000, a graduated surtax reimburses part of the grant, which would drop to $6,500 (but no lower) when an individual reaches $60,000 of earned income. Why should people making good incomes retain any part of the UBI? Because they will be losing Social Security and Medicare, and they need to be compensated.
The UBI is to be financed by getting rid of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, Supplemental Security Income, housing subsidies, welfare for single women and every other kind of welfare and social-services program, as well as agricultural subsidies and corporate welfare. As of 2014, the annual cost of a UBI would have been about $200 billion cheaper than the current system. By 2020, it would be nearly a trillion dollars cheaper."
There won't be a sensible UBI that is *cheaper* than our current welfare system, because it is impossible.
People who are truly disabled and unable to work should get more than the meager starter UBI. It's only enough for someone to live in poverty, with the intention that they would still be able to earn money doing something.
Social Security and Medicare could be eventually phased out, but they will not be replaced by a UBI at the beginning.
And the surtax for higher earners seems like a slippery slope. Just give everyone a UBI and tax it as income.
Murray's piece seems maybe unclear to me, but I read it as...disabled recipient currently getting $2,000 a month loses this monthly benefit and replaces it with $10K per year ($833/mo) Guaranteed Income, which that disabled person would regard as a Fail.
I'm sure it won't dissuade the true believers, but just because they may repeat something often doesn't mean they're correct. The article also mentioned the Basic Income was rejected in Switzerland by 77% of voters.
Charles Murray's Guaranteed Income would also be $10,000 but would go only to citizens 21 and over, hence probably in the range of $2T to $2.5T.
The US already tried it in Seattle and Denver from 1972-1982. Participants were given $1,000 per month, or $12,000 per year. While that might not seem like a lot of money, at the time $12,000 was equal to the median (average) income for Americans.
You and I will be long dead before a BI approaching that level materializes.
I've been living just fine on a budget of <$15k/yr, for the last 26 years. Sometimes a lot less. And I make house payments and pay for healthcare out of that too. And foreign travel!
I got some inheritance recently which will allow for a big increase in spending, so I figure I might as well... spend more. But it isn't going to make a substantive difference. I suspect a lot of people could greatly reduce their spending without it making a substantive difference either. I mean, you can still have the basics covered and enjoy plenty of possessions and activities.
So getting back on topic, a BI of ~15% of per capita GDP (currently ~$8700/yr) would be a good start, IMO. With an algorithm that increases the amount depending on the extent of tech unemployment.
European Countries Experiment With The Idea Of A Salary For Everyone
The Swiss voters recently rejected the idea of giving everyone in their country a salary even if they do not have a job.The proposal is based on the idea of universal equality, but Finland, Canada and even some parts of the United States are still interested and are toying with the idea. In Finland the government has already started this as an economic experiment to combat rising poverty and unemployment. And here in the US some believe it would be cheaper to do it that way then the way benefits are given now.
Quotes from the first article:
"Unconditional basic income, a policy option that seems radical by American standards, is gaining new traction across Europe, Canada, and even a few places in the United States. Also known as “universal basic income,” the policy mandates a guaranteed stipend to every resident of a community, with no strings attached. It is promoted as a way to address rising inequality, protect against economic uncertainty, and replace increasingly austere and inadequate means-tested benefit programs. A basic income is gaining credence among economists and policymakers as a necessity in a global economy that’s failing millions of people."
"Last April, a survey conducted by Dalia Research, out of Berlin, interviewed 10,000 people across 28 countries and 21 languages and found that 64% of Europeans would vote in favor of an unconditional basic income, only 24% would vote against it, and 12% wouldn’t vote. As I said, the results show greater support for basic income the more they know about it."
We already have millions of people on benefits programs in some way or another in the USA. And it's going to get worse as technology eliminates all but the high end, high IQ jobs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Im a family of one child and spend 3 times that. We are about 100-150 a week just for the basics..
European Countries Experiment With The Idea Of A Salary For Everyone
