31–40 of 52 posts
Wait a minute, though: Every adult gets $1,000/month. That's $12,000/year. How many adults do we have? Well, the US population is 326,000,000. Median age is 37, so I'll guess that 3/4 of the population is "adult" (age >= 18). That means that paying this handout will cost $12,000/person * 244,500,000 people = $2.934 trillion. That's... not a net win.
How many make > 200k and will be paying 100% of that 1k back as a tax? maybe 30%? So you can cut that by 30%.
It would work if you take it from the 1%
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If two checks are necessary, that's just more incentive for parents to stay together, or if that isn't possible, the child support can be taken out of the check. Also, with a guaranteed income, a family could much more easily move to a cheaper area with more opportunities. People also don't tend to consider the harms that means-tested programs do to the poor. Subsidized housing is one huge per peeve of mine because i…
> People also don't tend to consider the harms that means-tested programs do to the poor. True. Still, there will be many who are worse off with $1 UBI. I agree with your views. But if UBI is ever created it has 0% chance of replacing welfare.
Though the children could receive something like $800/month for the first, $600/month for the second, and so on up to the fourth which is compensated for $200/month. Anything above that will not be compensated. The diminishing returns will discourage people from having more kids just to have more money, and also will appease those who are afraid of "welfare queens" who only have kids to get money from the state. We know that the contingency of people actually doing that is practically nonexistent but it will assuage those who are still concerned about it.
I think it is really dangerous to hand over an amount of money that lets people completely check out of contributing to society. Alone maybe that is a sketchy amount to live off of but with roommates in an inexpensive area without a car it seems very doable. If you look at the amount of entertainment you can get from a used cheap desktop computer and internet connection along with the low cost of at home production o…
>some sort of busywork that has some social benefit
sounds like so much more of a trap and a hellhole than hanging out at home with the potential to produce the things you love. There will be some who simply don't contribute at all, but think of all the artists who could contribute to social good through culture enrichment who are stuck in the stereotypical barista/retail/waiter job who have no time to contribute to their community outside of their two jobs. You think they are already contributing maximally? They will be climbing out of a local optimum (making money to scrape by( to pursue their global optimum (producing art that enriches others' lives and gives them a sense of meaning, and possible a path out of crippling depression).
Edit: I should also include that "some social benefit" can be twisted to mean anything. One person handing out tickets, another stamping a wrist, and a third saying "enjoy the show" arguably provides social benefit but there is a significant opportunity cost involved with railroading people into these sorts of jobs.
Do people actually believe this universal basic income nonsense? If money isn't scarce but goods are the goods become proportionally more expensive. Inflation is a thing.
But, inflation.
Nothing about inflation ? That is likely to increase ? So what are the long term effects when corrected for inflation ?
Nothing about inflation ? That is likely to increase ? So what are the long term effects when corrected for inflation ?
It will cause inflation at the bottom of the economc and reduce it at the top. We call the difference between the top and the bottom inequality. Imagine you earn 24k in a very cheap part of the US. You now have 36k. Most of the cost gets absorbed and you need 36k for the same quality of life. However that CEO with 1000k per year also only gets 12k which means he gets 1012k. Before UBI the CEO had 42 times the income.…
In that case the handout does not make any sense ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It will cause inflation at the bottom of the economc and reduce it at the top. We call the difference between the top and the bottom inequality. Imagine you earn 24k in a very cheap part of the US. You now have 36k. Most of the cost gets absorbed and you need 36k for the same quality of life. However that CEO with 1000k per year also only gets 12k which means he gets 1012k. Before UBI the CEO had 42 times the income.…
> Most of the cost gets absorbed and you need 36k for the same quality of life. In that case the handout does not make any sense ?