• demonquark@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Which is in line with most other UBI experiments. How many more experiments do we need until politicians just acknowledge that this is good policy and we need to start implementing it?

        • FUCKRedditMods@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well not a tiny bit. Increase taxes in the 0.1% a whole fuckload. I’d increase taxes on billionaires to 90% and start freezing assets of anyone who tries to go overseas to avoid them. levy the world’s strongest ever economic and geopolitical sanctions against countries that harbor billionaire american tax evasion expats or something.

          • Szymon@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            18
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Let’s see someone run on that platform and not get JFKed before election day first.

          • Peaty@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            Ok what do you do when foreign investment dries up and no foreign entity wants their money in your bank since you have a habit of seizing it? How strong is the economy then?

            I don’t think you understand the consequences

            • FfaerieOxide@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              foreign investment dries up and no foreign entity wants their money in your bank since you have a habit of seizing it?

              Won’t happen if they still want access to your markets.

              How strong is the economy then?

              Plenty

              • Peaty@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                No one wants access to markets that seize money or companies. It is why Venezuela isn’t seeing foreign investment.

                If foreign money isn’t coming in your economy us going to be very weak comparatively.

      • qwertyqwertyqwerty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        They just print it. There’s nothing tying the value of the currency to what it’s worth in terms of purchase power except how much is circulated.

        My issue with UBI, at large-scale, is that it will cause inflation that will 100% go to the wealthiest people on the planet. For example, it’s not that the cost of a burger would need to go from $10->$15 because companies now need to compete in wages in an environment where their employees have an extra $12k, it’s that the cost of a burger will go from $10->$15 because the rich want the extra $5, leaving people receiving UBI with the same (or less) purchasing power.

        EDIT: To be clear, I’m excited about the possibilities that these studies show, and I’m not against UBI. I just am getting older and coming to the conclusion that the non-wealthy get fucked every time anything that is meant to help us is implemented.

        • agent_flounder@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah the effects on inflation need to be looked at pretty closely. Extra cash to people who need it is great for them. Extra cash for everyone, especially if it is just printed, surely will cause problems. Just the increase in money supply will result in inflation but yeah greedy assholes will find ways to suck up the free money from everyone else.

          The problem with the wealthy fucking over us peons is what’s truly Universal when we have so much corruption.

          If I didn’t fear it falling into squalor, along with NIMBY problems, some kind of public free housing would effectively be like a portion of UBI but harder for greedy pricks to suck up the money legally. And at least that way the people who would otherwise be able to work (e.g. those who became homeless due to medical emergencies) wouldn’t be at a disadvantage from being unhomed.

          Of course the real answer there is universal healthcare and elimination of for profit healthcare and elimination of health insurance. So that medical emergencies are just covered.

        • _number8_@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          yeah i’ve never understood why they can’t just print the money. how does that actually force the dude at costco to print new price tags. ohh oh no this amount seems like less now, it’s not as though we have abundance beyond our wildest dreams, better increase prices because of the graphs!!

        • centof@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          is that it will cause inflation that will 100% go to the wealthiest people on the planet

          It will only cause inflation if you print the money. If the supply of money goes up then value of money goes down.

          I just am getting older and coming to the conclusion that the non-wealthy get fucked every time anything that is meant to help us is implemented.

          I hear you there. We have a corrupt political class to blame for that. Which is why I advocate for the Forward party, which aims to break up the duopoly of the political system. It’s main policy goals are Nonpartisan primaries and Ranked Choice Voting.

      • FfaerieOxide@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Who cares? Did you not see who it was cheaper than what we’re currently doing because fewer people wind up in hospitals and prisons?

        Where does the more money we are currently spending come from?

      • centof@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Would you ask that if it came to the defense budget?

        I would rather the government spent its money on directly helping citizens rather than only giving it to the military industrial complex.

          • centof@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Neither does a UBI. It merely claims to help people improve their life.

            You’re the one bringing capitalism into this.

      • Jesus_666@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Part of it comes from removing existing social support schemes that UBI supplants. Not only can you reallocate those funds, the simplified ruleset should also reduce bureaucratic overhead, which can also go towards funding UBI.

        Will that cover all of the additional expenses? Probably not. But it’s a start, at least.

      • the_q@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Closing yeah loopholes and making the rich pay their share, churches, decreasing military spending by a fraction etc…

      • epyon22@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Ideally you use it to reduce/depreciate services that are more expensive counter parts to what UBI provides. Ideally a reduction in homeless shelters, food banks, police services, emergency hospital ect

      • dependencyInjection@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        It could come from rich people or it could come from cutting back on the services that go hand in hand with homelessness. Shelters, policing, less crime, etc

      • FfaerieOxide@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Where would it go?

        Partially this is a Cotton Eye Joe reference, but mostly pointing out that people spend money. Spent money is taxed. Huuzah.

        Also money isn’t real. You can just print the stuff.
        The only issue is the productive capacity of the society doing it.

      • crusa187@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Rolling back trump’s $2 Trillion tax cuts for the rich and corporations would be a great start. From there, increase taxes on both groups substantially. They will still be rich and still be making record profits, but we will gain social safety nets such as UBI in the process.

        Alternatively, we could generate funding for this the same way we did to fund over 20 years of military occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. It could come from the same place we get the funds for subsidizing fossil fuel companies. It could even come from the very same money printers we used to give free PPP loans to “businesses” during the height of the pandemic.

        The point being, if it’s good policy, a healthy functioning government does it, and doesn’t waste time asking questions about how we pay for things. Taxes. The answer is always taxes, it’s literally called the Internal Revenue Service.

    • Szymon@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      What can be reduced or removed with the introduction of UBI that offsets those costs? The need for a significant number of programs would be reduced or eliminated entirely with this type of support.

      That in mind, one needs to be sure they don’t give people less under the guise of giving them more, as is usually the case.

      • BB69@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You could eliminate SSI/Disability payments, but that’s a drop in the bucket. Maybe a tweak to child tax credits since you’d be coming out ahead for most. Then an income limit as well.

        Not the math behind OPs numbers so could likely expand on it

        • vic_rattlehead@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          If we implemented socialized healthcare and UBI, could we eliminate social security, medicare, medicaid?

      • Sonori@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        A negative lowest tax bracket would be more affordable, since that plus unemployment would only at most make up about 50million or .6 trillion a year.

        The main problem with cuting services like housing assistance or food stamps would be that thouse can be more than just a 1000 a month in many places and the government can do things to help with thouse at scale than an individual looking for a apartment can’t.

    • FfaerieOxide@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      That would save money on homelessness services and pig salaries, plus the money would be spent and therefore taxed.

      Even if it wouldn’t save money (it would) some taxes have needed to go up for a while now anyway.

    • rkw_social@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      $12,000 / year * 600,000 homeless people in the USA =
      $7,200,000,000 / year

      Maybe let’s start small and help some homeless people get off the streets for the low low price of ~0.1% of the country’s annual spending.

      I assume that once you have a stable situation, the supreme gets cut off. As more homeless get off the streets, this number should decrease (but probably not disappear [my cynicism says that we’ll probably never completely solve homelessness]). As more homeless become taxably employed, federal government revenue will increase; spending should decrease as various programs can be throttled back. I’m sure some sociologist-economist can give you a calculated estimated ROI figure on this investment, but I feel that the numbers would probably balance pretty evenly with the added benefit of helping a bunch of people and communities.

      UBI would be great but I don’t expect that to occur without a tonne of baby steps

    • centof@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      numbers dont lie

      But assumptions do.

      There is no set rule, that a UBI has to be $1000/mo. Even at $100 dollars it would be a huge help to many of us.

      That would make it ~$1/3 trillion / yr.

      Which would be 5% of the FY 2022 US Budget.

      A UBI would not require that Federal taxes go up by a significant rate.

    • derpgon@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I wonder how that would work by starting only in big cities, and expanding to less populated areas over time.

      More money income means people spent, means more taxes, means more money in the treasury, means more money to give away.

      By using the money to boost economy where it could be utilized could mean possibility to boost the economy elsewhere, without instantly enrolling everyone at the same time.

    • valveman@lemmy.eco.br
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Here. Found in the article, as an hyperlink.

      Page 10 contains info about the participants. Pages 12 - 33 contains the data you might be interested in. There’s also some information about the methodology they used.

  • Scary le Poo@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Why are people ignoring that 100% of this money would be pumped back into the economy every month? If you want your economy to boom, you pump money to people with the least means.

    People who only focus on “but it’ll cost xxxx per year!” Are completely missing the big picture. This money is taxed twice, because it becomes income, and then sales tax. When it is spent, it directly helps the local economy, which in turn inflates the state economy, which in turn inflates the US economy.

    If you want a gilded age of economic growth and prosperity, this is how you do it.

    Also, the money can come out of state budgets as well as federal budgets.