[jhauris]

If UBI could be implemented in around the same cost as the welfare programs it replaces, it would have a net zero effect on inflation. The downside of nearly all current forms of welfare (in the U.S.) is that they largely enforce the poverty gap. You get to a point where a small increase in pay causes a large decrease in benefits, and you become trapped unless you can get a large enough pay increase to jump the gap.

The two big ifs are: would UBI be the same cost as current welfare programs, and can we actually get rid of current welfare if we roll out UBI? There is a tremendous amount of overhead involved in current welfare programs, so it's not unreasonable that the first question is could be resolved. Politically, the second issue seems unlikely to be implemented.

[ChrisLomont]

>If UBI could be implemented in around the same cost as the welfare programs it replaces, it would have a net zero effect on inflation

It cannot, unless you're ok with screwing those already on such programs. Do the math, and you'll find it is not even close. Welfare programs (unless you include SS) are given to a tiny amount of people - spreading that across a large group of people simply screws those who need it most.

If you include SS, now again you're screwing old people who many times need the money to give it to people capable of work.

>The downside of nearly all current forms of welfare (in the U.S.) is that they largely enforce the poverty gap. You get to a point where a small increase in pay causes a large decrease in benefits, and you become trapped unless you can get a large enough pay increase to jump the gap.

This common claim is not true. There are ample people moving out of such program regularly, and many of them have limited lifetime benefits.

>would UBI be the same cost as current welfare programs,

No. I've been down this set of math lots of times. Do it - all welfare budgets are public, population is public, it's easy to estimate.

[loceng]

You make accepting UBI optional, so if the $1,000 per month or existing services is better for your situation then you get to decide - not the government; e.g. maybe you have 6 kids and food stamps etc you get is way better than the $1,000/month. This way there is also a statistics dashboard that we can see who's choosing what and optimize more precisely.

You force corporations to pay, to not be able to avoid taxes - using a VAT that's customizable so things like diapers have say 0% tax vs. buying ads on Facebook has 80% tax. The nuanced ability to lever different goods and services allows tax to be fine-tuned to cover all costs until the floor quality of life is covered/existing for all.

We can supply everything 90%+ of what people need through automation, the remaining 10% or less will be the engineers and system and machine designers and maintainers - while the 90%+ can focus self-improvement/education, family/community and being creative/artistic etc.

[ChrisLomont]

>You force corporations to pay, to not be able to avoid taxes

Economic maxim: "Corporations don't pay taxes, people pay taxes". This means when you think corporation tax is somehow free, you ignore that comes directly from stock prices and wages, i.e., direct income and pensions.

>you get to decide

Historical evidence shows that directed tax cuts and targets are much better multipliers of using tax revenues. Your method has been demonstrated to costing more for the same public outcomes, which is why there are so many directed tax cuts and directed tax spends. They are simply more efficient.

Simply put forth an estimate of what you think various groups need to pay to get what you think people will get with UBI. Once you try to put actual numbers to things, you soon realize it's simply not possible without damaging a lot of vulnerable people.

>We can supply everything 90%+ of what people need through automation

No, we cannot. Unless people take a drastic quality of life cut, and even then, we cannot.

[tgv]

> There is a tremendous amount of overhead involved in current welfare programs

Take the salaries of the people involved, and divide that over the entire country. Will that suffice? I don't think so, because it isn't as if 25% of the population is involved in distributing welfare.

> If UBI could be implemented in around the same cost as the welfare programs it replaces, it would have a net zero effect on inflation.

Not necessarily. If the government gave everybody a minimum wage extra, landlords could raise their prices further, shops, restaurants, construction firms, etc. would have to increase salaries to maintain lowly paid staff and raise prices, etc. There's a distinct risk of inflation involved in handing out money.

[PragmaticPulp]

> If UBI could be implemented in around the same cost as the welfare programs it replaces, it would have a net zero effect on inflation.

UBI is, by definition, Universal (e.g. given to everyone). Welfare programs are highly selective and only apply to a small number of people.

The only way to make them cost the same is to massively reduce the benefits given to the small number of welfare recipients, then give the balance to people who didn't previously qualify for welfare.

That's never going to happen, politically.

[kwhitefoot]

UBI is taxable income. You just adjust tax rates slightly to claw it back from those with higher incomes. No extra bureaucracy required, no means testing needed.

[PragmaticPulp]

Yep, that's the myth of "universal" basic income: It would actually be taxed away for most of the population.

You may get $2,000/month for "free", but most people reading this would see their taxes go up by $30-40K/year to pay for the program. The money has to come from somewhere.

But that doesn't change the fact that if we pump money into a certain demographic, the assets they're buying will go up in price. In this case, it's the lowest cost housing that will go up in price.

[ChrisLomont]

> just adjust tax rates slightly

Show us some napkin math. Once you start doing estimates you will realize how untenable these proposals are.

Until you actually write down numbers, it's all pie-in-the sky unicorn dreams.

[Kim_Bruning]

You can refactor it to net 0. Take n tax brackets. For each tax bracket estimate how much x% income is raised by UBI, then raise the taxes in that bracket to that same x%.

In the $0 income bracket this would be tax_rate:=100% , in the >$100K bracket it might be tax_rate:=1%.

So now your UBI is paid for but it's not doing anything useful.

However, you can now tune your tax brackets "as per usual" to get a more desirable outcome; lowering taxes in the lowest bracket and raising them in the highest.

The new ability you get is that while previously your progressive tax brackets only allowed you to control the upper limit of the income band , you now also have the ability to control the lower limit of the income band.

[HideousKojima]

I'm about as anti big government and anti welfare programs as you can get, but the overhead costs of most welfare programs isn't nearly as much as UBI proponents seem to think they are. Food stamps, one of the more inefficient ones, costs about 15 cents in overhead for every dollar in benefits. Most other programs like social security etc. range between half a cent to 5 cents for every dollar of benefits.