Poll of the Day > How has it been proposed to pay for UBI?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Give 1k to each American a month thats like...4 trillion. Thats almost the entirety of federal spending, or like half of goal government spending. Seems like a big project, not something that could be figured out quickly.

Andrew Yang wanted to put a tax on automation or something.

---

1k per adult american is 1000x260 million which is 260 billion dollars per month, which means you would need to do that for the next 16 months to reach 4 trillion.

As far as how to pay for it, honestly there is alot of spending that doesn't need to be done right now, and you still tax the wealthy and people making over 50 k etc. Basically paying for UBI for a year would cost less than the first stimulus package cost.

Long term though, the point is to replace most of the labor force with automated workers, and then incorporate a direct percentage of profits to the population as a whole, as less people are needed to work, you start making individual citizens gain a percentage of over all profits. It might not be enough to live on (at least not very comfortably) but it would suppliment incomes and enable individuals to work less hours per week, and spread the work that needs to be done around more.

Basically if you have half as many jobs, you could have everyone work half as many hours, but still earn enough to live comfortably (because of a UBI system that is set up).

UBI would also make the most sense to be set up for indivuals who make less then X amount already, ie anyone making less then about $4000 a month (or 50k a year). That is about a cut off at $20 an hour. If you make less than then, even if it's only by a bit, you get the UBI (if you work no hours, or if you work 40 hours). This means you would only be giving it to half the population (half of the adult population) or about 130 million americans. That would make is 32 months to reach 4 trillion, and it would be alot easier to pay for as well long term.

---

wolfy42 posted...

UBI would also make the most sense to be set up for indivuals who make less then X amount already,

That isn't UBI. The entire point of UBI is to give it to everyone, regardless of their income. Reasons for it are two fold

1) The cutoff would need to be arbitrarily high to prevent people from intentionally not working or otherwise trying to find ways around it ("no, don't give me the raise because it'll put me above the $20 limit of ubi and I'll make less money")

2) Rules around the money means there needs to be enforcement. And that enforcement costs money. If it just goes to everyone, you don't need to worry about people not claiming other income or otherwise tax dodging in order to claim the money.

With those rules on it I would absolutely expect to see a headline like "Bezos claims UBI because his lawyers found a way around the rules" when plenty of normal folk would otherwise get cut out. Just give it to everyone.

---

You would also save however much money is lost in the incredibly inefficient welfare, disability and unemployment systems. All you would need is simple proof you make below the cutoff and done, you get UBI. No more long drawn out court battles trying to prove you can't work because of your disability, no more case workers for it, no more people running those offices.

The main thing is that we want a society in which less work for humans to do is good but currently it's set up that less work for humans is bad. In order to stop the economy from collapsing when automation really takes off and encourage automation development, UBI is just the simplest and easiest solution.

---

Dynalo posted...

With those rules on it I would absolutely expect to see a headline like "Bezos claims UBI because his lawyers found a way around the rules" when plenty of normal folk would otherwise get cut out. Just give it to everyone.

For 1k a month, why would he bother? He'd probably be paying his lawyers more money to find and exploit the loophole.

---

YoukaiSlayer posted...

For 1k a month, why would he bother? He'd probably be paying his lawyers more money to find and exploit the loophole.

He already has the lawyers and accountants on payroll. He wouldn't bother - they would. It's generally their job to find these things and they're not just gonna ignore an easy 12k/year.

---

You could make a cutoff range and you could also just increase the amount to a point where nobody is caring about 1000 month anymore.

40% of americans make over 80k a year. Most people making 80k or more a year don't care enough to cheat the system just to get an extra 1k a month (even with taxes they are probably bringing home 5-6x that).

That still almost halves the number of americans actually getting UBI, and just because it's called "universal" doesn't mean you HAVE to make it for EVERY american. If you are netting more then 5k a month, you don't need an extra 1k from the government.

IF your making min wage or near it, you ALREADY need the extra 1k to survive in most places (or at least rent your own place).

This would also allow for more americans not to work if they can't, don't want to etc, and would get rid of disability/social security/unemployment etc. It would also drastically reduce the prison population (especially if you cut back alot of the drug laws).

The problem is 40% of this country is barely getting by, living paycheck to paycheck and is on the edge of disaster if their job goes poof etc. The next 20% are doing better and have some savings etc, but could still use a bit of help. The top 40% don't need a monthly payment from the government at all, and it would be a waste of resources to give it to them (and they would barely even notice it).

Couple that with a bit of an extended deduction (increase the base deduction from 12k per adult to 16k per adult) with 10% tax for the next 20k over that) and get rid of all the social security etc taxes that take away 10% of your income no matter what, and you would drastically increase the ability for people just getting by to survive, allow people to work less than 40 hours and still live comfortably, but still provide incentive to try for better jobs, go to schools and get trained etc.

We need to transition to a setup where the average citizen can live comfortably without needing to work, or needing to only do minimum amounts of work per week. It doesn't have to be right away, we have a good decade before I think we will see radical changes, but it's a transition that we will eventually need to make. There is almost no reason for most menial labor at this point, it costs companies more, it's inefficient, there is more likelyhood for error etc.

---

Dynalo posted...

He already has the lawyers and accountants on payroll. He wouldn't bother - they would. It's generally their job to find these things and they're not just gonna ignore an easy 12k/year.

First, it wouldn't be 12k, along with setting up a UBI system (although I still believe it should have a salary cap), we need to gut any loopholes that allow people making huge amounts of money to avoid paying taxes, or paying a small amount.

Our largest tax bracket is close to 40% (not including state etc).

I believe you need to be making 500k or more for that.

Anywone making that much would then only be getting 500$ a month or so after taxes from the government anyway (Because they would have to pay taxes on it). Also if people find loopholes, they might abuse it for a year, but you then alter the code and block them. Eventually no more loopholes and anyone making more then 80k doesn't get the UBI. Anyone making under it does.

I might even suggest making tiers all together. If you have zero income, it's 1500, if you make 40-80k it's $1000, and if you make over 80k you get nadda.

The $1500 is enough for people to survive on without working, and the 40k cap on that allows people to work to suppliment the $1500 a month a decent amount. You can live quite comfortably on 32-40k a year (especially if you bump up the deductions and remove payroll tax).

Those who do want to work can still make a significant amount of money per year and receive $1000 bonus from the gov, it lets you make all the way to 80k and still get bonus money, and you can live VERY well on 80k a year (6k or so after taxes).

Those making over 80k won't get anythign extra, but at that point it's just gravy anyway, you don't need more money than that.

---

wolfy42 posted...

You could make a cutoff range and you could also just increase the amount to a point where nobody is caring about 1000 month anymore.

40% of americans make over 80k a year. Most people making 80k or more a year don't care enough to cheat the system just to get an extra 1k a month (even with taxes they are probably bringing home 5-6x that).

That still almost halves the number of americans actually getting UBI, and just because it's called "universal" doesn't mean you HAVE to make it for EVERY american. If you are netting more then 5k a month, you don't need an extra 1k from the government.

IF your making min wage or near it, you ALREADY need the extra 1k to survive in most places (or at least rent your own place).

This would also allow for more americans not to work if they can't, don't want to etc, and would get rid of disability/social security/unemployment etc. It would also drastically reduce the prison population (especially if you cut back alot of the drug laws).

The problem is 40% of this country is barely getting by, living paycheck to paycheck and is on the edge of disaster if their job goes poof etc. The next 20% are doing better and have some savings etc, but could still use a bit of help. The top 40% don't need a monthly payment from the government at all, and it would be a waste of resources to give it to them (and they would barely even notice it).

Couple that with a bit of an extended deduction (increase the base deduction from 12k per adult to 16k per adult) with 10% tax for the next 20k over that) and get rid of all the social security etc taxes that take away 10% of your income no matter what, and you would drastically increase the ability for people just getting by to survive, allow people to work less than 40 hours and still live comfortably, but still provide incentive to try for better jobs, go to schools and get trained etc.

We need to transition to a setup where the average citizen can live comfortably without needing to work, or needing to only do minimum amounts of work per week. It doesn't have to be right away, we have a good decade before I think we will see radical changes, but it's a transition that we will eventually need to make. There is almost no reason for most menial labor at this point, it costs companies more, it's inefficient, there is more likelyhood for error etc.

I strongly believe that 40% of Americans don't make 80k+ per year. especially since the median household income is 62k per year.

edit: median individual income is about 33.7k per year for full time-workers.

wolfy42 posted...

That still almost halves the number of americans actually getting UBI, and just because it's called "universal" doesn't mean you HAVE to make it for EVERY american. If you are netting more then 5k a month, you don't need an extra 1k from the government.

I think the whole point of it being universal is so that everyone can have it. Many people will be against it if they can't have it. Also, it would be called something else since literally wouldn't be Universal Basic Income anymore. It would be something completely different... it would have to be the same amount, and it would have to be for everyone...

wolfy42 posted...

We need to transition to a setup where the average citizen can live comfortably without needing to work, or needing to only do minimum amounts of work per week.

This... probably won't happen. I feel like everything will eventually become automated, and people will start dying because they can't afford to live...

wolfy42 posted...

I might even suggest making tiers all together. If you have zero income, it's 1500, if you make 40-80k it's $1000, and if you make over 80k you get nadda.

What about over zero income up to $40k? How much do they make? According to Fam_Fam, that's the median individual income. So, I feel a lot of people would make that? Or is that counted with zero income?
---

If you do a search it breaks down the americans that make over 80k, over 100k, all the way up to over 500k, if you add them all together it's over 40% of americans.

Anyone making 0-40k get the full $1500 a month in addition to what they are making (But they do pay taxes on all of it).

Anyone making 40k to 80k get an additional $1000 a month.

Anyone making over 80k get ziltch.

Initially though incentives would probably be given to cause people to still work 24 hours (3 days) a week, until we get to a point where there are not enough jobs for everyone.

People who are disabled, retired (over whatever the current retirement age is) etc, would not need to work the 24 hours.

This would provide a work force during the transition, and people would have a base amount of money from working +1.5k, and probably get used to that as well.

See one of the advantages with such a system is people can work MORE hours, to end up with more funds to enjoy life with. You can live comfortably working 24 hours a week, but if you work 40 hours or even 50, you still will be making less than 80k for sure and for some jobs less then 40k even, so you'll get the additional money.

That means people will not NEED to work 40+ hours, but can if they want extra spending oney or have a goal they want to achieve etc. It will be a choice, not a neccesity. It might even cause more people to work harder/longer because they feel like it's up to them if they do, they are not being forced to do it, and all the money isn't going towards basic costs of living.

---

Fam_Fam posted...

edit: median individual income is about 33.7k per year for full time-workers.

I believe that includes part time workers. Full time closer to 49k median. Table 1.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/wkyeng.pdf

blu posted...

I believe that includes part time workers. Full time closer to 49k median. Table 1.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/wkyeng.pdf

even if this is true, that completely goes against the 40% make above 80k

Value added tax just like the majority of the world uses

why is it that nobody asks how we are gonna pay trillions to Wall Street or the military but when it comes to US citizens and healthcare everyone is all omg we could never afford such a thing

---

Mead posted...

Value added tax just like the majority of the world uses

why is it that nobody asks how we are gonna pay trillions to Wall Street or the military but when it comes to US citizens and healthcare everyone is all omg we could never afford such a thing

Mexico is gonna pay for that other stuff

---

Mead posted...

Value added tax just like the majority of the world uses

why is it that nobody asks how we are gonna pay trillions to Wall Street or the military but when it comes to US citizens and healthcare everyone is all omg we could never afford such a thing

We spent 0.7 trillion on military spending last year. I cant find number on Wall Street

Yeah, UBI need to be truly universal.

Fam_Fam posted...

even if this is true, that completely goes against the 40% make above 80k

Here are the numbers:

nnual household income in U.S. dollarsPercentage of U.S. households
75,000 to 99,999 12.5%
100,000 to 149,999 14.9%
150,000 to 199,999 7%
200,000 and over 8.5%

Total is 42.9% of americans but...that is 75k and up not 80k (close enough to 40k for 80 and up).

As far as the median, only 15% is 150k or over, but 40% are making $15 or less an hour (so 40k or less a year)

That radically affects the median, almost 3x as many people make less than 40k than make 150k or more.


---

LVT > other proposed taxes.

---

Judgmenl posted...

LVT > other proposed taxes.

Land Value Tax? I guess I thought that was part of property tax already. I guess not entirely.

LinkPizza posted...

I feel like everything will eventually become automated, and people will start dying because they can't afford to live...

The whole point of UBI is to avoid that. Less work with the same production of goods (or more likely even higher production of goods) should mean theres easily enough for everyone to live on.

---

blu posted...

Land Value Tax? I guess I thought that was part of property tax already. I guess not entirely.

LVT and property taxes are not even remotely similar.

---

YoukaiSlayer posted...

The whole point of UBI is to avoid that. Less work with the same production of goods (or more likely even higher production of goods) should mean theres easily enough for everyone to live on.

Yeah, we are going to produce more and more as we automate, but need less and less workers, but you still need people to BUY stuff and use it etc, so they need money to do that.

Eventually everyone should be able to survive but the best and brightest will work and live much better, at least in a perfect world. In reality , everyone will be able to survive, but yous till will have a working class, that well works for luxuries while the rich/wealthy make tons more just from the cash they already have.

---

Of course, it's also likely that businesses that compete on margins will be able to lower the price of goods with automation. Stuff like food and housing could potentially be made much cheaper which also means UBI doesn't need to be as high to support someone further lowering the cost. At least, thats how capitalism is supposed to work. The companies could all decide to just keep prices high because it's harder to get into automation to compete. Basically they'd be in the same situation where ISPs are right now and they overcharge the fuck out of us for subpar services because it's like a multibillion dollar investment just to get in the door to compete with them.

---

YoukaiSlayer posted...

The whole point of UBI is to avoid that. Less work with the same production of goods (or more likely even higher production of goods) should mean theres easily enough for everyone to live on.

Personally I'm still concerned about that because of the stigma that seems to be around not living to work.

And that's the sad thing, apparently we're producing more goods cheaper/more effectively than ever but wages have stagnated.

That doesn't fill me with confidence for the future.

ChaosAzeroth posted...

Personally I'm still concerned about that because of the stigma that seems to be around not living to work.

Well, science isn't going to stop unless we go extinct so it's going to happen one way or the other. I imagine most people will have a loss of purpose if they don't have to work that'll probably spark most people into creative/entertainment fields as well as probably an uptick in researchers.

The stigma against not having a job will only last until unemployment hits like 30%. Eventually everyone will know 2+ people that just can't find a job no matter how hard they try and it will get normalized.

---

YoukaiSlayer posted...

Well, science isn't going to stop unless we go extinct so it's going to happen one way or the other. I imagine most people will have a loss of purpose if they don't have to work that'll probably spark most people into creative/entertainment fields as well as probably an uptick in researchers.

The stigma against not having a job will only last until unemployment hits like 30%. Eventually everyone will know 2+ people that just can't find a job no matter how hard they try and it will get normalized.

The other possibility is massive exploitation that makes current exploitation look like a joke technically.

I guess I'm cynical anymore. I don't assume anything good will happen or that things will work out.

ChaosAzeroth posted...

Personally I'm still concerned about that because of the stigma that seems to be around not living to work.

because its become a toxic mindset for a lot of americans

we should celebrate the truly talented individuals and those who want to throw themselves into work they enjoy, but thats not a worthwhile life for everyone

---

ChaosAzeroth posted...

The other possibility is massive exploitation that makes current exploitation look like a joke technically.

For what purpose though? To get more things that are virtually free? To make sure your family is stable and secure which everyone's already is by default in this future?

Motivation to be a huge dickbag goes down when safety and comfort are a guarantee. I'm sure some people still will be problems but I think the prospects are good. Scarcity is the need to compete and if that need vanishes, it should be a lot easier to be a good person.

---

Maybe stop spending so much money on the military and the militarization of the police.

---

YAY, everyone can get free money from the government so we can all be artists! And our rainbow fingerpaintings can be worth something!!!!

---

YoukaiSlayer posted...

For what purpose though? To get more things that are virtually free? To make sure your family is stable and secure which everyone's already is by default in this future?

Motivation to be a huge dickbag goes down when safety and comfort are a guarantee. I'm sure some people still will be problems but I think the prospects are good. Scarcity is the need to compete and if that need vanishes, it should be a lot easier to be a good person.

Why do the super rich who have more than they could spend in multiple lifetimes try to exploit every way to get even richer?

Idk, but it's what they do.

Having more that what someone needs doesn't make them a good person. If that were the case we'd already have a lot less problems. Motivation to be a dickbag from the people who have a good chunk of the wealth didn't go down because they have a good chunk of the wealth.

It's what corporations do that worries me, not the average person.

Joker_X_II posted...

YAY, everyone can get free money from the government so we can all be artists! And our rainbow fingerpaintings can be worth something!!!!

let us know when you wanna converse like a grown up

---

Mead posted...

let us know when you wanna converse like a grown up

Nah, I've danced these dances before, and the UBI topic ALWAYS ends with people saying they'd rather be artists than actually do REAL work for a living.

---

What yall are missing (probably, didn't read every post) is that UBI pays for itself in terms of debt consolidation

---

Yes it is an aggressive approach to income inequality.

You should probably look into studies and test runs of UBI instead of asking us. Like, everyone for or against it itt.

---

Joker_X_II posted...

Nah, I've danced these dances before, and the UBI topic ALWAYS ends with people saying they'd rather be artists than actually do REAL work for a living.

Stop playing video games, they're made by people who don't do REAL work for a living.

---

Joker_X_II posted...

Nah, I've danced these dances before, and the UBI topic ALWAYS ends with people saying they'd rather be artists than actually do REAL work for a living.

it gets discussed on this board all the time and and youre the first person Ive ever seen post crap about artists when it comes to UBI

youre just pissed off and projecting

---

UBI isn't needed yet, but what happens when every non entertainment job is filled by robots? Just let everyone other than business owners, athletes, and artists just starve to death?

---

Muscles posted...

Just let everyone other than business owners, athletes, and artists just starve to death?

The bible says,.... yes

---

This isnt supposed to be a topic on whether or not we should have UBI.

I just wanted to know how its been proposed we pay for it.

blu posted...

This isnt supposed to be a topic on whether or not we should have UBI.

I just wanted to know how its been proposed we pay for it.

Debt consolidation is one way, since the countless different government programs that give low income grants and such can be put into a singular UBI account with lower interest rates.

---

Muscles posted...

UBI isn't needed yet, but what happens when every non entertainment job is filled by robots?

if we wait until it is needed it will be far too late for a lot of people

millions of households will fall apart its not like theyre just gonna hit a switch one day and start all the automation

---

Better budgeting all around and stopping relying on trickle down bs probably would do a lot.

Looks a gaming companies, CEOs get bonuses. Brags about record profits. Massive layoffs.

Mead posted...

if we wait until it is needed it will be far too late for a lot of people

millions of households will fall apart its not like theyre just gonna hit a switch one day and start all the automation

Let me clarify, we don't need it yet, but we will before we get to that point, I didn't mean to imply we don't need it until that point

---

wolfy42 posted...

Initially though incentives would probably be given to cause people to still work 24 hours (3 days) a week, until we get to a point where there are not enough jobs for everyone.

How do we decide who gets the jobs?

YoukaiSlayer posted...

The whole point of UBI is to avoid that. Less work with the same production of goods (or more likely even higher production of goods) should mean theres easily enough for everyone to live on.

I know thats what its for. I dont think itll work. First of all, I think UBI wont be implemented in time. And even if it was, $1,500 Is definitely not enough.

YoukaiSlayer posted...

Stuff like food and housing could potentially be made much cheaper which also means UBI doesn't need to be as high to support someone further lowering the cost.

The UBI cost as it is isnt enough. And I not only live in a lower cost of living area, but cheap for the area, as well...
---

LinkPizza posted...

The UBI cost as it is isnt enough. And I not only live in a lower cost of living area, but cheap for the area, as well...

Ok but imagine your food payment per month is down to 30 bucks total and your house payment is 50 bucks because the entire food process is automated and self sufficient and housing now takes zero labor and the materials are also collected and managed automatically so you are basically just paying for the fuel required to transport materials (which has also gone down due to automation).

That's also per person and not per household. I've had me, my mother, and sister living on 1500 a month for several years before. In this scenario we would actually have 4500 per month.

---

Mead posted...

it gets discussed on this board all the time and and youre the first person Ive ever seen post crap about artists when it comes to UBI

youre just pissed off and projecting

oh shut up,..."I'm the first"?....fuck off....

ALL UBI TOPICS devolve into it's principle purpose, discussions dig into the kernel of such ventures to explore whether or not such a program is feasible to begin with. Even on philosophical side of the discussion pop up as to an individuals "purpose" in their own life and society at large when all they do is mooch for a living.

---

Joker_X_II posted...

when all they do is mooch for a living.

Which is bad now, because work needs to be done by humans, but is totally fine in a scenario where there is little to no work that needs to be done by humans.

---

YoukaiSlayer posted...

Ok but imagine your food payment per month is down to 30 bucks total and your house payment is 50 bucks because the entire food process is automated and self sufficient and housing now takes zero labor and the materials are also collected and managed automatically so you are basically just paying for the fuel required to transport materials (which has also gone down due to automation).

That's also per person and not per household. I've had me, my mother, and sister living on 1500 a month for several years before. In this scenario we would actually have 4500 per month.

The reason I cant imagine that is because I dont see that happen... At all... I dont even see it going down much. I mean, if we add VAT tax to stuff, the price will go up on stuff. And I cant ever imagine seeing a house payment go to $50 a month. Thats laughable. As for food, thatll probably be different person to person. I already spend quite a generous amount on food. And even if prices went down, $30 wouldnt cover a week...

And it doesnt matter let person or household. $1,500 a mount doesnt even pay my monthly payments. And I have a roommate... If you have multiple people in the house, thats great for you. Doesnt really help me, though...
---