The Great American Share – Sam Altman Interview on Basic Income

I haven't seen a convincing argument for either half of this, much less the mutually contradictory combination.

Different people used different definitions of basic income. As far as I know, the most commonly accepted definition says nothing about the amount. But I have heard people say that it's not a "true" basic income if it's not above a certain level.

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. So you can't add up the cost without also considering the benefit. If you give me ten dollars and I give you nine dollars, it doesn't mean that you're down by ten dollars. UBI must be looked at in this way. At a national level, it's just a straightforward cash transfer. The national cost plus the national benefit would simply 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 a $12,000 UBI from that $58,000 -- via a simple individual flat-tax -- 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.

Of course the person earning earning $100k will also have to pay 20%, and they of would only receive $12,000 back as UBI -- 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 this UBI could replace existing benefits programs, the tax increase would be closer to 8% * 75% = 6%.

So although 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% (?)

THAT is how you finance a UBI.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_...

My take on UBI is that it only makes sense as a response to rampant automation that has marginalized a substantial (perhaps >75%) portion of the global human population. Meaning that most people cannot effectively enter the economy and provide for themselves because they just cannot compete against the machines, at some point in the near-future.

In the limit, nanotech and fusion power will put almost all of us out of work (not to mention AI/ML et. al.)

At that point, we have to figure out what to do with all these "surplus" people. The (gruesome) options are: enslave them (N. Korea), or kill them.

One maybe-possible other solution is to just give them money and see what they do.

From my POV any discussion of UBI as something other than a response to a "phase shift" in economic realities due to advancing automation is kind of missing the point.

I actually would like to create a Universal Automation Inc. company and issue shares and get crackin', but I'm lazy and it seems to be happening anyway!

Why would you want such a guarantee? You don't think people who need housing and food will buy housing and food with their money? I mentioned this in another comment, but I'm not aware of any kind of epidemic of people who can afford housing not buying housing.

If we do have such a problem, then I agree with you that we should help the people who are suffering from bad judgment. But why not do that in addition to providing them with a basic income?