Study: A universal basic income would grow the economy
1–10 of 89 posts
Re: Study: A universal basic income would grow the economy
#2"But a $12,000 a year per adult basic income is another matter. The Roosevelt paper finds that paying for it would require increasing household tax revenue by 120 percent — a more than doubling. To do that, it assumes that all but the poorest 40 percent pay more in taxes. The middle quintile (households with an income between $48,300 and $85,600, per the Tax Policy Center) would see their average tax rate go from 14 percent to 25 percent; the top one percent would see its average tax rate go from 32.9 percent to 67.9 percent."
Well, this idea is dead in the water then.
Re: Study: A universal basic income would grow the economy
#3"But a $12,000 a year per adult basic income is another matter. The Roosevelt paper finds that paying for it would require increasing household tax revenue by 120 percent — a more than doubling. To do that, it assumes that all but the poorest 40 percent pay more in taxes. The middle quintile (households with an income between $48,300 and $85,600, per the Tax Policy Center) would see their average tax rate go from 14…
Yeah, more likely the rich would just self-fund fascist paramilitaries to keep "the poors" in line like they've always done.
Re: Study: A universal basic income would grow the economy
#4"But a $12,000 a year per adult basic income is another matter. The Roosevelt paper finds that paying for it would require increasing household tax revenue by 120 percent — a more than doubling. To do that, it assumes that all but the poorest 40 percent pay more in taxes. The middle quintile (households with an income between $48,300 and $85,600, per the Tax Policy Center) would see their average tax rate go from 14…
Yeah, more likely the rich would just self-fund fascist paramilitaries to keep "the poors" in line like they've always done.
We'll add a tax on private armies first.
Re: Study: A universal basic income would grow the economy
#5A couple of things right off the bat. This study assumes that:
- There is zero effect on propensity to work
- The national debt has no secondary effects on the economy
- Changes in taxation do not affect consumption or investment behavior, at any tax level.
Those first two right there are incredibly massive assumptions, and they amount to two of the biggest criticisms of these proposals in the first place. And the third is flat out wrong, with enormous amounts of data available to debunk it.
Moreover, the third assumption ("Increasing government revenue by increasing taxes levied on households does not change household behavior") is actually at odds with their end conclusion! If there were truly no change in household behavior (whether at the margin or in the aggregate), then there could be no primary mechanism for this policy to have an impact in the first place. (And because this study explicitly ignores secondary impacts, without a primary impact, what are they actually claiming to measure?)
So I'm not sure what the value is in a study that basically says, "If we ignore the biggest and most commonly criticized negative effects, the effect of this policy will be positive".
Re: Study: A universal basic income would grow the economy
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, more likely the rich would just self-fund fascist paramilitaries to keep "the poors" in line like they've always done.
We'll add a tax on private armies first.
The rich will make their politicians add a tax so that the middle class to pay for the armies that keep themselves in line.
Re: Study: A universal basic income would grow the economy
#7"But a $12,000 a year per adult basic income is another matter. The Roosevelt paper finds that paying for it would require increasing household tax revenue by 120 percent — a more than doubling. To do that, it assumes that all but the poorest 40 percent pay more in taxes. The middle quintile (households with an income between $48,300 and $85,600, per the Tax Policy Center) would see their average tax rate go from 14…
Yeah, more likely the rich would just self-fund fascist paramilitaries to keep "the poors" in line like they've always done.
It's not just "the rich" that wouldn't want this. Do the simple math, if I make 100k a year, which is middle class in most of the US, I would be paying >25% in taxes, which would be at least over 25k. It's a heavy burden to the middle class, and the people it really only benefits are the ones in poverty.
Re: Study: A universal basic income would grow the economy
#8A couple of things right off the bat. This study assumes that: - There is zero effect on propensity to work - The national debt has no secondary effects on the economy - Changes in taxation do not affect consumption or investment behavior, at any tax level. Those first two right there are incredibly massive assumptions, and they amount to two of the biggest criticisms of these proposals in the first place. And the th…
Exactly, and no mention if this would affect welfare and other social programs. So if someone still gets all the aid they do today and $1K per month, then there is more money to spend but are there more people who want to work where that money is spent?
I think it likely that this would cause low end job wages to rise, not necessarily increase employment.
Re: Study: A universal basic income would grow the economy
#9"But a $12,000 a year per adult basic income is another matter. The Roosevelt paper finds that paying for it would require increasing household tax revenue by 120 percent — a more than doubling. To do that, it assumes that all but the poorest 40 percent pay more in taxes. The middle quintile (households with an income between $48,300 and $85,600, per the Tax Policy Center) would see their average tax rate go from 14…
Or maybe it is dead in the water because of horrid assumptions in their model...
Re: Study: A universal basic income would grow the economy
#10A couple of things right off the bat. This study assumes that: - There is zero effect on propensity to work - The national debt has no secondary effects on the economy - Changes in taxation do not affect consumption or investment behavior, at any tax level. Those first two right there are incredibly massive assumptions, and they amount to two of the biggest criticisms of these proposals in the first place. And the th…
Exactly, and no mention if this would affect welfare and other social programs. So if someone still gets all the aid they do today and $1K per month, then there is more money to spend but are there more people who want to work where that money is spent? I think it likely that this would cause low end job wages to rise, not necessarily increase employment.
Certainly any job that only offers "do this and we give you enough money to barely live" will have to pay more.