> The math doesn't work and has never worked. UBI proponents will never talk math because it doesn't add up, even with the most casual analysis.
Wrong, utterly wrong, on accounts.
> It's not enough to do anything with.
You have no idea what it's like to be poor. I grew up poor in America. $12k per year is an absolutely life-changing amount for many people. It means you will not go hungry. It means you will not die of exposure. It gives you bargaining power at work: it means there are degradations you will not subject yourself to in order to earn more money.
> Even upon receiving that, many people would still work massive hours to obtain the best house on the block.
Yes, that's fine. UBI is not supposed to replace work.
> But just to do that in the US you are talking about 3 trillion dollars (300 million x $10k for easy math) that you have to find in the budget. As you stated, that IS the entire budget.
I'm sorry, I'm going to swear... please don't take this personally, but I've been talking hard numbers about UBI for years, and it's the anti-UBI people who can't do the fucking math.
Here's a math problem: You give me $1 and I give $1. How much did that cost you? NOTHING. -$1 + $1 = $0. That's how math works. Are you with me so far? Good, thank you, please stay with me.
The trick with Universal Basic Income is that it Universal. It is paid to everyone. That means everyone is both a contributor to it and a recipient of it. You can't add up the cost without also adding the benefit. Because it is a straightforward cash transfer, the National cost plus the total benefit would be zero. But of course what people are really interested in is how much it would cost them.
The per capita Gross National Income is $58,000. To extract $12,000 from that $58,000 would require a 20% tax rate. However, the person making $58,000 would also receive $12,000 per year in UBI. So they would pay $12k and receive $12k, making the total cost to them ZERO. That is how math works.
Of course the person earning earning $100k will also have to pay 20%, and they of course they would also receive $12,000 -- putting them -$20k + $12k = $8k out of pocket. So for everyone earning $100k, the cost of UBI is 8% of their net income. Actually -- because about a quarter of UBI could replace existing benefits programs, the tax increase would be closer to 8% * 75% = 6%.
So while it would notionally require a 20% tax increase (or 15%, if you account for the savings it would create), for the vast majority of Americans it would cost nothing, and for no American would it cast more than 20%. Here is how it would break down:
Income pre-UBI | Income post-UBI | cost/benefit | Tax increase | % of Americans at or below [1]
---------------|-----------------|--------------|--------------|---------------
$0 | $12,000 | + $12,000 | N/A |
$20,000 | $28,000 | + $8,000 | N/A | 35%
$40,000 | $44,000 | + $4,000 | N/A | 61%
$60,000 | $60,000 | N/A | N/A | 77%
$80,000 | $76,000 | - $4,000 | 5% (4%) | 86%
$100,000 | $92,000 | - $8,000 | 8% (6%) | 91%
$120,000 | $108,000 | - $12,000 | 10% (7.5%) | 93% (?)
And those are the hard numbers. To support a national income UBI of $12,000 via a simple, equitable flat-tax, this is what it would take. 77% of Americans would pay nothing and would in fact be net beneficiaries. 9% of Americans would pay up to 4% in additional taxes. 5% of Americans would pay up to 6% in additional taxes. 3% of Americans would pay up to 7.5% in additional taxes, and so forth. A very very small number of billionaires would see an effective tax increase of 20%.
THAT is how you finance a UBI. It's easy math.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_...