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 would welcome an additional $2,500 to my pension.
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.
If UBI were to be implemented in the US, it would cost more than $3 trillion a year to provide the nation’s 300+ million people with $10,000 per year, according to Robert Greenstein, the president of Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. That would cost between $30 trillion and $40 trillion over the next 10 years. An expenditure this huge could come as a shock to people in the US. Greenstein says Americans have not been willdaunting.” ing to accept neither the kinds of levels of taxation nor the breadth of social support seen in western Europe.
Moderator cut: .
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.
Last edited by yellowbelle; 06-07-2016 at 01:00 PM..
Reason: copright - please post only a sentence or two and the link, otherwise please paraphrase
I would love to see a break down on how.. I have 3 things that are always the same so i can budget for, rest are unknowns do to market conditions.
I'm married and we split shared expenses, so this is my share per year (approximately):
House payment $5000 (mostly principal)
Home insurance $300
Property taxes $700
Utilities $1400
Internet $350
Car insurance $400
Gas, depreciation, repairs $800 (I drive ~3k miles/yr)
Food $1800
Health insurance $1200 (pre Obamacare, now zero)
Total $12,000/yr, which leaves $3,000/yr for "other". And honestly most of the house payment is principal which is money in the bank.
It isn't rocket science. I live in a beautiful place with an excellent climate. As of now I am retired, but I previously made money doing something I could do anywhere via internet sales.
Before we moved here we lived on Kauai. We rented a 250 sq ft efficiency for $850/mo about as far from the beach as you could get. Utilities were cheap. My wife went to school and did massage and I was a waiter part time. We both had total POS "island cars" that worked well enough for the 3 years we were there, and then sold them for more than we paid. We had fun, didn't work that hard, and saved money working part time random jobs while living in a very high COL place.
The Center on Budget & Policy Priorities (a progressive think tank) did the math and basically said Basic Income doesn't work...
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.
They should have called me...
Obviously their idea of "progress" is to make up excuses. If you link the total BI budget to 15% of per capita GDP, the additional taxes needed to pay for it would be 5-10% of GDP. This would still put us well below many developed countries in total taxation.
Switzerland's BI proposal wasn't serious. It was insanely high with no details on implementation.
We do have alot of people in our country, but if you take all the giveaways we do for other nations it can off set that huge deficit. We spend more feeding 3rd world country than we feed our people. That is the issue we face.
Agree that we need to keep the money here but I think infrastructure is a better place to start than this.
All other social programs would need to be cut to fund basic income. However, they won't be because too many people are profiting from that model. The worry is that the UBI amount will be the new poverty floor, keep those programs in business.
Actually, Charles Murray just had a long piece on this in the Wall Street Journal. He has a proposal to give every American (over 21 I think) $10,000 per year in monthly installments.
The catch is that ALL existing assistance programs (TANF, SNAP, Section 8, etc) AND Social Security Disability will go away at the same time. I can imagine someone on disability getting $2,000 a month being unhappy about this after having paid into Social Security for years.
Here's a test of basic intelligence to go with "basic income."
In one group, [A] everyone is EQUALLY WEALTHY. No one "needs money," so no one bothers to go work, sweat, strain, make an effort, mine, farm, fabricate, transport and trade usable goods and services.
In the other group, [b] everyone is prodigiously productive, producing, trading and enjoying surplus usable goods and services.
Which one will survive?
Obviously Group [b].
Group [A] has gone extinct, unless everyone wakes up and gets productive despite not needing money (nor a "basic income").
Everyone cannot be equally wealthy because prices will rise to soak up any surplus money floating around, e.g. rents will necessarily skyrocket, at least some people will have to work more.
This may work in small, highly productive countries, where there is a consensus or nearly so that paying the higher taxes is worth it.
The US simply has too many people for this to work, even at such a small scale
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.
So getting back on topic, a BI of ~15% of per capita GDP (currently ~$8700/yr) would be a good start, IMO.
That would cost $2.2 TRILLION annually.
Assuming the federal government actually surrendered its Welfare Programs, you'd only have $1.3 TRILLION. You're still $900 Billion short.
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.
Progressive Think Tank on Basic Income
