this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2024
826 points (99.4% liked)

politics

19050 readers
3842 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
  • A Seattle basic income pilot gave low-income residents $500 a month, nearly doubling employment rates.
  • Some participants reported getting new housing, while others saw their employment incomes rise.
  • Basic income pilots nationwide have seen noteworthy success, despite conservative opposition.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago (2 children)

What do you consider low income and what do you think the cut off should be? Most people aren't exactly in favor of giving rich people money so the line needs to be drawn somewhere.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 6 months ago (3 children)

I don't know the answer.

The universal part of Universal Basic Income has always had this sticking point with me. Will Gates, Bezos and Musk also receive UBI?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Depends on implementation but just paying it out to everyone is the easiest option. You can even make a progressive tax system that's nothing but UBI + flat tax, ridiculously easy to administer. If the UBI was, say, 1k and the tax rate 50% (just to have easy numbers) if you earn 100 bucks a month you end up with 1050, if you earn 2000 you end up with 2k, and if you earn 1m you end up with 501000: Under 2k income the effective tax rate is negative, at 2k it's exactly zero, at just over 2k it's very low, over that it approaches 50% in the limit. Much cheaper and easier to just give it to everyone than means-test a gazillion low-income people just to spite Gates.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Absolutely they would. Everyone would.

Of course taxes would rise to cover it, so the average person would be absolutely no better off than they are now.

In return the really poor get some breathing room, and we can kill all the "money grabbing dolescum" discourse around claiming benefits. People with low outgoings who just want a break from the treadmill can take it.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Absolutely they would. Everyone would.

Of course taxes would rise to cover it, so the average person would be absolutely no better off than they are now.

That's actually incredibly optimistic, imo.

$500 a month is $6000 a year.

If we gave that amount of UBI to all working age Americans (rounded down for easy math, numbers 200 million), that's a price tag of $1.2 trillion, every year.

That's slightly more than the amount the US spends on welfare programs annually. The entire federal budget is about $6.2 trillion, so this would mean an increase of almost 20%. Where could we possibly get that much more tax revenue?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago

You're getting half that back every year. You forgot that part. So it only cost 600 million a year. In fact that means we could kick it to a thousand a month and still be close to our current welfare budget. Find the number that matches exactly, (something like 928) and we can match our current spending while giving poor Americans ~$11,000 a year.

And the government smaller thing actually works here too. You'd think the conservatives would love this! Unless, it's actually about hurting people isn't it? Was smaller government just code for hurting people?

[–] [email protected] 24 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yes, but only because it would cost more to exclude them. For no added cost we can just add it to their taxes so it comes out neutral.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Thanks. That makes sense. So you can so do the same tax trick with other levels of earning.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

Yup. At the theoretical middle we'd just tax 50% of the UBI, and so on.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I don't mind if they get $500 a month but in exchange they need to actually pay their taxes.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 6 months ago

Lol right? Sure IDGAF if Jeff Bezos gets $500 with everyone else as long as he pays his millions upon millions of taxes. $500 is a drop in the bucket of what he should be paying. Also Amazon the company should undoubtedly be paying way more taxes than it does (if it even does).

[–] [email protected] 23 points 6 months ago

Most UBI models use exactly that model to save a lot of money on the program. They just tax it back from the rich people.