UBI, or universal basic income, is a form of direct cash assistance to help the most vulnerable get back on their feet. A new study in Denver suggests it works.
What can be reduced or removed with the introduction of UBI that offsets those costs? The need for a significant number of programs would be reduced or eliminated entirely with this type of support.
That in mind, one needs to be sure they don’t give people less under the guise of giving them more, as is usually the case.
A negative lowest tax bracket would be more affordable, since that plus unemployment would only at most make up about 50million or .6 trillion a year.
The main problem with cuting services like housing assistance or food stamps would be that thouse can be more than just a 1000 a month in many places and the government can do things to help with thouse at scale than an individual looking for a apartment can’t.
You could eliminate SSI/Disability payments, but that’s a drop in the bucket. Maybe a tweak to child tax credits since you’d be coming out ahead for most. Then an income limit as well.
Not sure of the math behind OPs numbers so could likely expand on it
Social Security would require a higher amount than 1k a month, lots of social security recipients get more than that. You’d be looking at a tiered system, which eliminates the U in it.
Medicare and Medicaid yes, but you’d be supplementing with higher taxes (a net positive more likely anyways since the higher taxes would likely be lower than the cost of private insurance)
$12,000 / year * 600,000 homeless people in the USA =
$7,200,000,000 / year
Maybe let’s start small and help some homeless people get off the streets for the low low price of ~0.1% of the country’s annual spending.
I assume that once you have a stable situation, the supreme gets cut off. As more homeless get off the streets, this number should decrease (but probably not disappear [my cynicism says that we’ll probably never completely solve homelessness]). As more homeless become taxably employed, federal government revenue will increase; spending should decrease as various programs can be throttled back. I’m sure some sociologist-economist can give you a calculated estimated ROI figure on this investment, but I feel that the numbers would probably balance pretty evenly with the added benefit of helping a bunch of people and communities.
UBI would be great but I don’t expect that to occur without a tonne of baby steps
I wonder how that would work by starting only in big cities, and expanding to less populated areas over time.
More money income means people spent, means more taxes, means more money in the treasury, means more money to give away.
By using the money to boost economy where it could be utilized could mean possibility to boost the economy elsewhere, without instantly enrolling everyone at the same time.
deleted by creator
What can be reduced or removed with the introduction of UBI that offsets those costs? The need for a significant number of programs would be reduced or eliminated entirely with this type of support.
That in mind, one needs to be sure they don’t give people less under the guise of giving them more, as is usually the case.
A negative lowest tax bracket would be more affordable, since that plus unemployment would only at most make up about 50million or .6 trillion a year.
The main problem with cuting services like housing assistance or food stamps would be that thouse can be more than just a 1000 a month in many places and the government can do things to help with thouse at scale than an individual looking for a apartment can’t.
You could eliminate SSI/Disability payments, but that’s a drop in the bucket. Maybe a tweak to child tax credits since you’d be coming out ahead for most. Then an income limit as well.
Not sure of the math behind OPs numbers so could likely expand on it
If we implemented socialized healthcare and UBI, could we eliminate social security, medicare, medicaid?
Social Security would require a higher amount than 1k a month, lots of social security recipients get more than that. You’d be looking at a tiered system, which eliminates the U in it.
Medicare and Medicaid yes, but you’d be supplementing with higher taxes (a net positive more likely anyways since the higher taxes would likely be lower than the cost of private insurance)
deleted by creator
That would save money on homelessness services and pig salaries, plus the money would be spent and therefore taxed.
Even if it wouldn’t save money (it would) some taxes have needed to go up for a while now anyway.
$12,000 / year * 600,000 homeless people in the USA =
$7,200,000,000 / year
Maybe let’s start small and help some homeless people get off the streets for the low low price of ~0.1% of the country’s annual spending.
I assume that once you have a stable situation, the supreme gets cut off. As more homeless get off the streets, this number should decrease (but probably not disappear [my cynicism says that we’ll probably never completely solve homelessness]). As more homeless become taxably employed, federal government revenue will increase; spending should decrease as various programs can be throttled back. I’m sure some sociologist-economist can give you a calculated estimated ROI figure on this investment, but I feel that the numbers would probably balance pretty evenly with the added benefit of helping a bunch of people and communities.
UBI would be great but I don’t expect that to occur without a tonne of baby steps
I wonder how that would work by starting only in big cities, and expanding to less populated areas over time.
More money income means people spent, means more taxes, means more money in the treasury, means more money to give away.
By using the money to boost economy where it could be utilized could mean possibility to boost the economy elsewhere, without instantly enrolling everyone at the same time.
But assumptions do.
There is no set rule, that a UBI has to be $1000/mo. Even at $100 dollars it would be a huge help to many of us.
That would make it ~$1/3 trillion / yr.
Which would be 5% of the FY 2022 US Budget.
A UBI would not require that Federal taxes go up by a significant rate.
It can come out of state budgets as well, not just federal budgets.