[jaimeyap]

The formulation of the question frames Social Security and Medicare as being mutually exclusive with a UBI.

UBI ought to replace things like food stamps and welfare. Not healthcare or retirement benefits!

I am a huge fan of UBI, and I would have voted "disagree" the way that question was framed.

A better formulation would be to frame UBI as an "automation dividend". Where we dip into increased efficiencies produced by automating labor to fund a basic income.

[cheald]

The reason it does so is that it's the only viable way to fund it.

235,715,590 people 21+ in the US. At $13k/year that's just over $3 trillion dollars per year. Social Security spending was $888b in 2015, Medicare spending was $546b in 2015, and other welfare spending was $1.031b. If you cut all SS, Medicare, and other welfare spending and redirected it into a $13k/yr UBI, you'd still be about 20% short of your necessary funding. Total federal revenues for 2015 were about $3.25t.

If you leave Medicare and SS in place? You could only fund 46% of the UBI requirement with existing welfare spending. Good luck passing the massive tax increases needed to fund that. And that's ignoring the fact that the SSA indicates that the long-term ability to meet SS obligations is already in danger.

[drabiega]

Every thread about UBI is full of people doing this same math. Anyone who thought that you could have UBI without taxes to zero it out for most of the population has long since been convinced. Who are you writing this for?

[eanzenberg]

Until it is explained how it will be funded this fact should always be brought up.

[abannin]

Isn't Social Security just age restricted basic income? It seems strange to have UBI and then give citizens another check after they hit retirement age.

[maxerickson]

The retirement part of Social Security is conditional. The amount of the benefit is determined based on working salary and there is a (fairly minimal) amount of working years that must be recorded to receive it.

https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10070.pdf

The disability system is different (but also obviously conditional).

[abannin]

It looks like I don't fully understand the system. I suspect there is a need based system that supplements Social Security benefits if the recipient is below the poverty line?

[lumberjack]

What? No. People worked for that money. It's more like a mandated savings account or mandatory old age insurance or something like that.

[chimeracoder]

> What? No. People worked for that money. It's more like a mandated savings account or mandatory old age insurance or something like that.

Well, if you take an insurance model to Social Security, the only real 'risk' is the question of how long you'll live. And depending on how much you make, it's very possible to pay in more to Social Security before the age of 65 than you can expect to receive in benefits even for a reasonably long lifespan, making it a redistribution rather than a mandatory savings account.

Put another way, even if you assume that Social Security will be around in 40 years[0], if you get a high-paying job straight out of college and keep getting paid at that rate (adjusted for inflation), Social Security is basically guaranteed to pay you less money than you would have if you just kept the withholdings yourself and stuck it in a regular savings account.

Whether or not you think that's a good thing, it's very clearly a redistribution and not an insurance.

[0] and also ignore the fact that the benefits being paid in 40 years will be based on the taxpayers 40 years from now, not the taxpayers today

[eanzenberg]

How do you reconcile the massive increase in spending this would cause?

[Retric]

A flater tax rate would make up a large chunk of the difference. Basicly, at 50k you still get UBI, but it's offset by new taxes to leave your after tax income more or less the same.

At 25k, you pay a lot more in taxes, but get a UBI for a net gain.

At 0k you just get UBI, not food stamps ect.

There would probably be a net cost increase, but as SS counts as regular income it's not going to be huge for most retires. At some UBI levels it's actually less than our current system.

Programs to be removed, food stamps, HUD, welfare, unemployment insurance, Medical disability part of SS, and all the overhead associated with them.

PS: The economic gain from social mobility would likely be huge as long as you don't adjust UBI for locations. Why be poor in NY when you can live well in a cheap part of Florida.

[cheald]

You're effectively describing a negative income tax, not UBI.

[maxerickson]

There's a whole miasma of overlapping ideas.

Lots of people propose a negative income tax as a way to implement a UBI.

[Retric]

I am not sure there is a difference as UBI's must be funded.

At least in the US, oil states for example have a somewhat independent income stream.

[wang_li]

I thought the U stood for universal. If you take it back in new taxes, it's just a transfer program from productive to non-productive.

[thaumasiotes]

It's a transfer from productive to non-productive under all possible setups. How were you imagining it would be funded?

[deathanatos]

But I have to echo eanzenberg's comment,

> How do you reconcile the massive increase in spending this would cause?

If you're giving each person $13k/yr, does that not imply that you must then collect $13k/yr/person in taxes? Unless you're thinking it is all going to come from corporate taxes, then at least some of it must come from a citizen's taxes, no? (and if you do think this should come from corporations, do you not think that would have an effect on what gets passed to an employee? Why not pay a person $13k/yr less? — or more, since some people won't/can't work and we must cover them too?)

I have no idea if UBI is a good idea or not … but if people want to do it, I expect to know how it will be paid for.

[maxerickson]

You can just print the money or otherwise conjure it into existence. For instance, by telling banks to change numbers in their databases.

It probably isn't a good idea, but it's possible.

[thaumasiotes]

That's still a transfer from productive people to unproductive people. It just takes the specific form of hyperinflation.

There is no difference between taxing everyone 20% of their holdings, and printing yourself 25% of everyone else's holdings. Either way you end up with a fifth of the wealth, and everyone's purchasing power goes down so yours can go up.

[Retric]

So is prison, social security, food stamps etc. considering we have a very large and expensive system it's worth looking into improvements.

[maxerickson]

It often stands for unconditional.

[1024core]

I keep asking the same question; and all I get, basically, is that the money will just appear from somewhere.

What will happen to all the non-profits and government departments that are built around providing "services" to the poor, homeless, etc.? It's a huge industry, and it's not going down without a fight. In the meantime, you have added a few trillion dollars in annual spending to the budget.

[chimeracoder]

> It's a huge industry, and it's not going down without a fight.

It's not just that it's 'not going down without a fight' - these services are essential for people in need.

These services provide them with more than just financial assistance. Given them money (and doing away with the services) only solves the problem if you assume that lack of money is the only problem. Which it's not - it's one aspect of the problem, but not the only issue for people in need.

[malka]

UBI may not totally clear the homeless problem. Many of them are insane person without any care.

[rm_-rf_slash]

Depends on the costs. If automation can push down food costs to minuscule levels (like a solar powered, robot-run, indoor greenhouse), you won't need to take as much in taxes. Granted, housing is often much more expensive relative to income - especially to the poor and working class - but that doesn't mean there can't be mass-produced, high density housing units.

UBI really could work, but right now I don't think the costs of completely sustaining societies are low enough to keep the tax increases from chafing people enough to support a repeal

[eanzenberg]

I think it will work and I think it will come. What I most disagree with is the timescale for the shift to occur :)

[vvanders]

Yeah, $13k + no Medical is insanity. It's seems like the question was framed specifically to fail.

[brooklyndavs]

Totally agree, the question was framed poorly. Most liberal economists would disagree with this because it strips the existing social safety net (Social Security and Medicare being the big ones) and replaces it with only 13k. Heck, try buying private health insurance for someone who is 70 on 13k a year. :) Most conservative economists disagree because you didn't "earn" that money (whatever that means) and it would raise taxes. I suspect it was framed in a way to generate the most amount of disagreement as possible.

[mason240]

>UBI ought to replace things like food stamps and welfare. Not healthcare or retirement benefits!

Why would you receive extra retirement payments on top of UBI? That would defeat the entire purpose of UBI.

[lumberjack]

Well in that case it would be a rotten deal. Why would anyone want this crap instead of a normal pension?

[mason240]

We are referring to Social Security type programs, not private pensions.

I'm 32 have little doubt that my private retirement accounts will be seized through taxes by the time I retire, but that's a different issue.

[malka]

healthcare is not an extra payment though. I think it is important to have a universal healthcare even with UBI.

[maxerickson]

Yes, the most immediate thing that can be done to effect progress towards a UBI is to lower medical costs.

The tricky question is whether we can do that. For instance, does new medical technology do much to lower lifetime spending?

[ghaff]

>does new medical technology do much to lower lifetime spending?

Not in general. New technologies/medicines/etc. tend to increase healthcare costs.

[mason240]

I was referring the SS reference.

[wildmusings]

Unless it serves as a replacement for almost all handouts, it will never get the votes to pass in the US.

Also, Social Security is effectively a UBI for old people. Why would you keep it around?

[mason240]

Unless it serves as a replacement for almost all handouts, it wouldn't even be UBI.

[anoplus]

Agree with what you said. I also believe we need to keep UBI high in discussion to move it forward.