Replacing welfare payments with “basic income” for all is alluring, but expensive
1–10 of 131 posts
Re: Replacing welfare payments with “basic income” for all is alluring, but expensive
#2How expensive is it to NOT provide a "basic income"?
Re: Replacing welfare payments with “basic income” for all is alluring, but expensive
#3This analysis doesn't seem to account for the savings and increased efficiency from all the policy changes basic income would enable.
For example, water and parking spaces could be priced at their actual cost, rather than being subsidized. This would make the water market function properly and allocate it efficiently, and remove a bunch of car-related externalities.
Need public housing? Not if you set a high enough basic income level.
Street crime? Possibly quite reduced.
Massive corn subsidies? Who needs 'em?
And think of all the otherwise great ideas that we don't do because they'd effectively be regressive taxation. For example, congestion pricing. We could revisit all those ideas.
And what about when the children of would-have-been-poor households grow up with an actual ladder up? Think of the things they'll invent, the contributions they'll make to society.
Re: Replacing welfare payments with “basic income” for all is alluring, but expensive
#4As a big fan of the idea of a basic income I would love some numbers on this. Simplicity is sometimes worth the price.
Re: Replacing welfare payments with “basic income” for all is alluring, but expensive
#5n Britain, for example, workers can earn £10,600 ($16,500) before income tax is levied on subsequent earnings (starting at 20%).
Shortly to increase to £12,500 in George Osborne's next budget in July.
Re: Replacing welfare payments with “basic income” for all is alluring, but expensive
#6How expensive is it to NOT provide a "basic income"?
This consideration is missing in most of discussions about basic income. What is the opportunity cost of NOT implementing a basic income scheme?
What if we make an effort to assess the opportunity cost in longevity changes, public health indicators, crime rate, education levels and, perhaps, most encompassing and important parameter: human happiness.
I am quite sure that the opportunity cost which humanity and individual nation-states incur for not implementing basic income is absurdly, humongously huge.
Re: Replacing welfare payments with “basic income” for all is alluring, but expensive
#7Probably as expensive as giving the homeless free housing... which has repeatedly shown to be cheaper than not
Re: Replacing welfare payments with “basic income” for all is alluring, but expensive
#8Raise tax on capital gains and stop corporate tax avoidance. You'll have enough to implement a minimum wage.
Re: Replacing welfare payments with “basic income” for all is alluring, but expensive
#9Having negative income tax brackets for those that:
1. Work +
2. Declare their income (i.e., file tax returns) +
3. Make below X amount
... is more financially reasonable and has the benefit of keeping the person working/trying/moving.
In this system, as an example, someone making below 30K year would gets the difference between what they make and the 30K mark given to them.
Otherwise, the only other solution is to just have the FED print out the 5-10+ trillion/year this guaranteed minimum income program needs - and distribute it each month.
Most people are already paying a 40-60% effective tax rate (all use, property, local, state, federal taxes - and other related fees - added up) on what they earn, and you really can't tax them more for obvious reasons.
Re: Replacing welfare payments with “basic income” for all is alluring, but expensive
#10This analysis doesn't seem to account for the savings and increased efficiency from all the policy changes basic income would enable. For example, water and parking spaces could be priced at their actual cost, rather than being subsidized. This would make the water market function properly and allocate it efficiently, and remove a bunch of car-related externalities. Need public housing? Not if you set a high enough b…
'Need public housing? Not if you set a high enough basic income level.'
If everyone's income were increased, might not prices for things like housing go up as well, so some people could still be priced out?