Universal Basic Income is Capitalism 2.0

Just a quick estimate, assuming that we're talking about the UK here

The UBI pays out to 53,000,000 people (very roughly the number of people 18 and over).

The amount the UBI pays out is £1,000 a month (whether you could really live on this is debateable, but it's certainly not possible in most of London for example).

53,000,000 * £1000 = £53,000,000,000 (£53 billion) monthly cost

53,000,000,000 * 12 (months) = £636,000,000,000 (£636 billion) yearly cost

Bear in mind the entire UK budget for 2018 was £842 billion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_Kingdom_budget

Infact, if you break this down to local/national spending, the national government budget for 2018 was £652 billion:

https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/year_spending_2018UKbt_17...

So a UBI would cost pretty much as much as the entire UK national budget (healthcare, education, defence, infrastructure, welfare etc.)

I'm all for increasing taxes, but assuming that you replaced welfare with a UBI, you'd still have a (roughly) £400 billion shortfall - just where does that money come from?

It's affordable at a lesser amount, sure, but at that sort of level, what's the point?

This is before even getting to other arguements (if you want to use it to replace a welfare system, then in my opinion, it's essentially a regressive scheme, because everyone is getting the same payout, regardless of need).

For an engineer, it absolutely does.

How? By giving a broader range humans the ability to shout "This problem matters to me. Please build something to solve it" into the economy.

---------------------

Suppose it is 2013. I build a tool that helps a luxury hotel in New York do bespoke guest relations slightly better. They have customers who have money, so they have revenue, so I get revenue.

Suppose it is 2013. I build a tool that helps a food truck in Flint, Michigan run their operations. Their customers don't have money, so they don't have revenue, so I don't get revenue.

Helping people get fed and create community, or polishing a luxury experience for a very few -- Which job has more meaning and purpose?

You want "smart" people to have more wealth and income than "less smart" people, making an argument for a intellectual based meritocracy or something - I think ignoring all the other factors that determine success in a our economy like luck, family wealth, and business smarts. There are plenty of smart people that aren't rewarded for their skills by markets (researchers anyone?) and plenty of "less smart" people who are successful simply because of the prior success of their family.

Meritocracy may be ideal, but having it as the foundations of your economy thinking seems pretty ignorant.

And then I think a silly correlation between higher wealth & income, and spending habits are made. More successful people don't invest their money to improve their future financial prospects. There are plenty of rich people who piss away all of their fortune or still manage to live paycheck to paycheck, and there are plenty of lower income people who vigorously penny pitch for a retirement account they won't see until they are 70.

Furthermore, frivolous items of consumption like alcohol, gambling, and fast food is present across all classes. Wanting to have a good time doesn't depend on your income. Higher rates of consumption may be seen in lower classes, but I would chalk that up to lack of opportunities and lack of information than inherent stupidity or something.

1. People in the comments below have addressed this. Not really sure how this creates a greater power divide than the current system. Having money allows individuals choices. 2. Again, providing people with money will allow them to have more choices. If housing becomes too expensive in my county, I now have a greater degree of freedom to move and this creates more competition for rental rates. 3. This is one that I feel like most people miss the forest for the tree. You're right, it's going to happen. I just don't think that a portion of bad actors in the system should prevent that massive benefits it can create for the people in society that will spend it in more productive ways. I've heard arguments of how it will create disincentives in society. That people will choose to no longer work. But when I ask the exact same people that pose that question if they would stop working if they had $14,400 provided to them every year, the answer is unequivocally, no. If you're looking for policies that solve all problems, you're not going to find any.