
What it would take to actually institute Universal Basic Income - prostoalex
http://qz.com/611644/we-talked-to-five-experts-about-what-it-would-take-to-actually-institute-universal-basic-income/
======
patio11
125 million households in US:

@ $1 / year each : Cost less than one of several individual machines in
various portions of the federal inventory (mostly things which kill people
efficiently).

@ $1,000 / year each : Exceeds combination of all federal spending on
healthcare and education.

@ $10,000 / year each: over 1/3rd of total federal tax receipts

@ $30,000 / year each: consumes entire federal budget

~~~
forgotpwtomain
Please include a source when you cite numbers that could be considered
contentious?

~~~
patio11
Source: US federal budget. And 4th grade math. But mostly the budget.

~~~
forgotpwtomain
> Source: US federal budget. And 4th grade math. But mostly the budget.

Okay, here is the Wikipedia result (2014, in billions):
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_States_federal_bud...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_States_federal_budget)

Medicare: 519.027

Health: 450.795

With 125 million households: ((519.027 + 450.795) * 10^9)/ (125*10^6)) = $7758

Let me quote your original post:

>> $1,000 / year each : Exceeds combination of all federal spending on
healthcare and education.

So how about actually providing some information about which sources you are
looking at and how you are doing calculations, instead of pulling numbers out
of your ass, and then offering some dismissive condescending response:

> Source: US federal budget. And 4th grade math. But mostly the budget.

When someone quite reasonably asks you to provide these - since your post as
it stands really isn't contributing anything to the conversation..

------
massemphasis
On the other hand, instituting UBI will decrease the people's willingness to
accept immigration. The Nordic countries are notoriously homogenous in respect
to diversity. A country like the US is extraordinarily far more diverse than
something like a Nordic country. Countries like Norway, etc... that institute
these welfare programs for their population are also among the least welcoming
of immigrants.

If Donald Trump were smart he'd likely pursue the UBI dependent on how much
money the US makes versus the number of citizens. This would definitely
trigger the same kind of mentality resident in welfare states like the nordic
countries to resist immigration.

How would this be addressed in the US? Would it signify a change in the
immigration trend in the US?

~~~
mc32
One could mitigate that by setting it up where new citizens have a waiting
period before they can qualify --kind of like retirement [where you wait till
you qualify]. Same for anyone under 18, they [or legal guardians] receive
progressively more as the children grow and need more.

Or alternatively, your qualification follows you as a natural-born citizen of
a given country --so you as a Canadian or American, Japanese, etc., receive
UBI from your [original] country no matter where you live or move to so you
would never qualify for UBI from a new host country blunting the threat of
people thinking new immigrants get a free ride from the new host country.

~~~
prostoalex
Under current rules babies are eligible for more entitlements than older kids
up to teenagers just because at that time in life they need more care.

If UBI is replacing existing entitlements, that means taking away food stamps,
WIC, free child annual physical / dental / vision exams (under AAC/Obamacare),
tax deduction for dependents on 1040, and a host of other programs like free
baby formula or car seats.

~~~
tempestn
I would worry about replacing many of those child-focused programs with
something cash-based. You want to do everything possible to ensure children
are getting a basic level of care, and unfortunately if you give parents the
choice between paying for a child's vision exams and keeping some extra cash,
more than none will choose the cash.

~~~
nickff
> _" if you give parents the choice between paying for a child's vision exams
> and keeping some extra cash, more than none will choose the cash."_

The question we should ask is whether children would be better off, not how
much would be spent on them. It may be that money allocated more efficiently
by caring parents would be more beneficial than the neglect which may occur.

~~~
mc32
Alternatively, the questions is, should we have a minimum floor ensuring all
children have basic access to care, or are we more interested in maximizing
the average [and admitting this could result in some children being neglected
medical care].

~~~
nickff
I disagree with the premise of your statement that there can be an absolute
floor, as government is fairly good at distributing money, but bad at
providing outcomes; but agree that there should be some discussion of the
classic mean vs median vs 5th (or other) percentile outcome prioritization
trade-off.

------
Meekro
> A basic income can be funded by taxing bad things...

The author is assuming that you can increase revenue by imposing new taxes,
but that is rarely true. Tax revenue as a percentage of GDP has been nearly
constant for the last 70 years, even as tax policy has fluctuated all over the
place[1].

[1]
[http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Doc...](http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205)

~~~
jessriedel
But don't several other countries collect a much higher percentage of GDP? I
like your data, but it seems more likely to me that fractional GDP collected
is limited by voters than economic limitations of taxation.

~~~
nickff
Most of the countries which collect a higher percentage of GDP do so only at
the federal level. If you look at US tax income and include the states, you
will see that the collection percentage is more closely comparable to other
western countries, and that the total receipts still stay relatively flat
despite tax policy changes.

~~~
spangry
I'm sorry but that's simply false. From the OECD's latest 'Revenue Statistics
Publication' ([http://www.oecd.org/ctp/tax-policy/revenue-statistics-
method...](http://www.oecd.org/ctp/tax-policy/revenue-statistics-methodology-
guide-and-classification-system.htm)):

 _This annual Report presents detailed internationally comparable data on tax
revenues of OECD countries for all levels of government..._

It's like the first sentence in their methodology section. Their 2014
estimates show total tax to GDP ratios of 34 countries that range from 19.5%
to 50.9%. They are in no way 'relatively flat'.

EDIT: Here's a direct link to the spreadsheet -> [http://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-
policy/table-a-total-tax-revenue...](http://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/table-
a-total-tax-revenue--gdp.htm)

------
brandonmenc
> A basic income can be funded by taxing bad things, things we need less of,
> such as pollution, financial transactions, and extreme wealth.

Why do we need fewer financial transactions?

~~~
com2kid
This also neglects that after taxing those things, less of those things will
exist, thus decreasing tax revenue.

~~~
WalterBright
I.e. if pollution is taxed, there'd be less of it? I'd vote for that!

~~~
com2kid
Well yes, that is a good thing. But it doesn't work if the government does
their math assuming revenue from that tax is constant!

------
ohthehugemanate
The title is wrong. It should be "we talked to 4 pro-UBI Facebook group
admins, and 1 expert"

TL;DR Associate professors of philosophy who manage Facebook groups promoting
UBI like the concept and think it's feasible in a number of ways. The only
economist (and only full professor) interviewed says:

"UBI gets all this attention and popularity, but I haven’t seen one model
that’s even on the planet of financial feasibility."

~~~
qrendel
People seem to forget just how much is currently spent on a lot of
extremely... debatable programs. These are approximate numbers off the top of
my head, but:

US military spending = $1.5 trillion per year (~$700 billion for the DoD, the
rest from other military and NatSec programs)

US per capita healthcare spending = $8,600/person/year (edit: corrected by
caseysoftware below, that includes private and public spending)

Social Security = another ~24% of the federal budget

Interest on the national debt = 7% of the US budget

Again, rough numbers off the top of my head, but you could get a decent basic
income going across the entire US just by switching to an affordable
healthcare system and cutting the military budget to something on par with
what the rest of the world spends. UBI would also replace and simplify a lot
of the existing welfare and social security system, so that portion wouldn't
even be additional spending compared to what's already happening.

The obstacles seem more political and cultural than fiscal and economic. To a
large extent it's basically wanting to replace the current corporate welfare
for the military-industrial complex, healthcare, college bubble, etc. systems
with something that would (arguably) benefit society far more.

~~~
caseysoftware
Don't guess when the actual 2015 budget is a single search away:

[https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-
bud...](https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-
budget-101/spending/)

Your $1.5T number for military isn't backed up by facts as the _entire_
discretionary spending for all agencies is only $1.1T

US per capita healthcare spending - do you mean Medicare and Medicaid? I'm not
sure how you came up with this number because $8.6k * 320M people = $2.75T
which would be about 66% of the federal budget.

Social Security itself is closer to 33% of the federal budget, not the 24% you
cite.

~~~
spangry
Discretionary spending doesn't even make up half of US Federal Government
outlays. The CBO estimates that total budget outlays in 2014 were 3.5 trillion
dollars
([https://www.cbo.gov/about/products/budget_economic_data#2](https://www.cbo.gov/about/products/budget_economic_data#2)).
As for how much the US actually spends on Defense alone (as in the function,
not just the discretionary portion of the budget that goes to the DoD), no one
really knows for sure. The only estimate I can find is on wikipedia
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_De...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Defense#Budget))
and all the references lead to dead links.

However, for whatever reason, the Oregon State Hospital hosts a copy of one of
these documents (the 2010 DoD Agency Financial Report:
[http://www.oregonstatehospital.net/d/otherfiles/Fiscal_Year_...](http://www.oregonstatehospital.net/d/otherfiles/Fiscal_Year_2010_DoD_Agencywide_Agency%20Financial%20Report.pdf))
Buried on page 58, in an appendix, are the actual numbers: 1.2 trillion
dollars total DoD budgetary resources in 2010. The GAO have previously stated
that DoD financials are so messed up that they are unauditable:

 _As was the case in 2010, the main obstacles to a GAO opinion on the accrual-
based consolidated financial statements were: (1) serious financial management
problems at the Department of Defense (DOD) that made its financial statements
unauditable_
[[http://www.gao.gov/press/financial_report_2011dec23.html](http://www.gao.gov/press/financial_report_2011dec23.html)]

But don't worry, the DoD have a plan to have proper financial statements by
2017...
[[http://www.gao.gov/highrisk/dod_financial_management/why_did...](http://www.gao.gov/highrisk/dod_financial_management/why_did_study#t=1)]

------
dilemma
I'm partial to it as an idea and a sentiment, but what it would take to
institute it is the impossible: deciding on the level of it.

Should it be $5,000 per month so that the full costs of an apartment in NYC/SF
so that a family could on with their lives undisturbed by unemployment? Or,
should it be $500 to cover just the most fundamental needs of shelter and
nourishment in the Midwest?

There are many levels in-between -- it's just as impossible to decide between
$1,000 and $1,500 -- and if you went ahead to implement UBI, the conflict this
would cause would halt implementation.

~~~
isomorphic
Most states have some form of income tax. The federal government could work
with an average UBI amount, which each state could increase (or not) from its
own budget.

(Not that the above isn't contentious and probably stands no chance of being
put into place; I'm just suggesting a model to address your point.)

~~~
dilemma
No. The problem of deciding on the level of UBI remains, and remains
impossible regardless of who is making the decision.

------
WalterBright
> taxing bad things, things we need less of, such as [...], and extreme wealth

Yes, the money should be taken away before those people fritter it away on
eradicating polio, making electric cars, and building a space program.

~~~
darpa_escapee
Because this is an accurate description of how the wealthy have used their
wealth.

The public good shouldn't be left in the hands of those who are only willing
to contribute if doing so can increase their wealth.

~~~
landryraccoon
> The public good shouldn't be left in the hands of those who are only willing
> to contribute if doing so can increase their wealth.

Would you be willing to consistently apply this across everyone in the
population, not only the wealthy?

------
mc32
UBI is attractive in its simplicity but there are many open questions.

-How much is dispensed/person/family?

-Who qualifies [every child, man and woman; when do new citizens qualify?]

-What happens when people make bad decisions about their UBI? Do we still offer assistance to people who misspend/misallocate it?

-In order to get more purchasing power out of UBI, do we move people en-masse to less costly and more dispersed places?

-Is it progressive depending on income, or is it unconditional?

-People who were once employed by the apparatus, and who may not have alternative jobs in social services, are they relegated to just getting by with UBI?

-How do we pay for all this [depending on allotment]?

------
cprayingmantis
Look I really like this idea of a UBI but I don't think it would work. We tend
to think everyone is like us and we're hackers and creators to us its a
compulsion to add or create value. The trouble of this idea to me is for a lot
of low income families we pretty much subsidize their lives and it honestly
isn't working. I grew up in an area of the country where we had tons of people
living on welfare. Did they create? Did they add value to the community? Nope
not at all. They were a drain the community. Take for instance a friend of
mine we'll call her Mary. She has three kids and she gets free child care and
after school care. She also gets food stamps, low income housing, and is
eligible for 2 free college classes a semester from the local university
because she's a single mom with low income. She's also got her CNA licence.
She holds no job despite offers from places in the community. Now according to
this UBI theory she would be a prime candidate. We give her money and
magically she begins to add value to the community because she doesn't have to
worry about money anymore. However we already do this and she's a drain on the
community. She takes and never gives back. Now let's take another friend of
mine we'll call him James. He doesn't have a job and didn't qualify for
college but he can code. His github account is filled with commits to all
kinds of crazy projects. He just loves to build things. He adds to the
community.

My question to you is do we give every one UBI because I'm not really ok with
that. If James said man I'm short on rent this month I'd give him $100 but if
Mary said she need $100 for diapers and cloths I'd refuse because she has
places to get that and if she's short on money its most likely her own
mismanagement of cheques. I'm open to new ideas though. So help me understand
why UBI is a great idea.

------
ChuckMcM
One of the most interesting questions that people consider, when thinking
about basic income, is whether or not people would still "want" to work if
they were being given enough money to get by. That is a question which has a
lot of opinions but not a lot of data behind.

One way to study this might be to take a population which is on welfare, and
for some of them replace their welfare with 'one string attached' basic
income. The string is that if they take the BI they cannot also take welfare.
However any money they earn by working doesn't affect how much BI they
receive, it's a constant. Then compare them against other people in the study
who were left on welfare.

The goal would be to see how many BI recipents returned to work versus welfare
recipients over 1, 2, and 5 year time spans. Trying to get a sample set in the
100 - 200 people range could be very expensive but it would help establish
some data with which to analyze the question of whether or not people will
work or not while getting basic income.

~~~
pkaye
One thing I imagined with basic income is if my wife and I paid off our
mortgage and saved enough money, we could retire early, tighten our belts and
live off our savings and whatever the basic income provides (multiplied my
number of people in my household.) A big part of our living expenses are taxes
and a mortage!

------
brandon272
UBI seems to be presented under the context that every single adult in the
country receives a UBI payment every month. Assuming that the UBI is funded
through existing taxes/entitlement inlays, why not limit it to only those who
need it or would ordinarily qualify for some kind of social assistance? (i.e.
Unemployed/low income + retirees)

~~~
patio11
UBI advocates believe that distinguishing between people who need/deserve
assistance and people who don't need/deserve assistance is one reason why the
US is not in favor of larger social outlays, and putting a check in everyone's
hand every month will buy ironclad support from across the political spectrum.
They additionally say that welfare programs can realize tremendous reductions
in cost of administration by not having to distinguish between e.g. working
and non-working recipients.

~~~
peteretep
You are conflating two points here. UBI needs to be available to everyone, but
that doesn't mean everyone should receive it. Unless you abolish all tax, then
for people paying more than it in tax, it's simply a tax break.

------
matt_wulfeck
I'm sorry but I can never support something that gives this much power to the
federal government. I'm thinking of the massive tax collection and enforcement
machinery needed to gather this much money. im thinking of all of the new laws
and exceptions that will be created.

------
yanilkr
It would truly cost liberty.

Do you think an entity that gives you free money is going to let you be free?
It is going to tell you what you can/cannot spend on, where you can and cannot
go. The system would enslave you to the state.

It would be so bad it would even be impossible to opt-out.

~~~
agorabinary
And self-respect. What Golden-age do UBI proponents imagine in which everyone
is massively dependent on a state entity, in which young men and women grow up
without an impetus to become self-sustaining adults, in which everyone is an
"artist" working on their book, one Facebook alt-tab at a time.

It would begin with a basic income. And once it is in place, would voters
every pick the candidate that promises to reduce or persist the current rate
of free money? It's impossible for UBI to not explode in scope over the course
of a few election cycles.

~~~
Frondo
Everyone works on a book or project of their choosing? Sounds like a golden
age for creativity and culture. Sounds like everyone gets to enjoy the self-
actualization currently reserved for a few.

Sounds really nice overall.

------
ScottBurson
I've found a short piece [0] on the Negative Income Tax, an idea closely
related to the UBI, that I think does a better job than this article of
discussing the problems with any such scheme. Some quotes:

 _The first and most basic problem is that it is currently fiscally—and
perhaps administratively—impossible to construct an NIT that simultaneously

1\. provides an income guarantee as generous as the cash and in-kind benefits
already available to many welfare recipients in the United States,

2\. provides an ostensible incentive to work (a far greater concern when
benefits are to be extended beyond the traditional welfare population
dominated by female-headed families), and

3\. restricts coverage to any manageable proportion of the population—the so-
called "break-even" problem.

These constraints are, in fact, irreconcilable as long as the median income
remains within striking distance of the poverty line—a situation that has
barely improved over the last two decades of slow average economic growth.

The second problem with an NIT is that the welfare system already provides a
package of cash and in-kind benefits that, in many states, is worth
considerably more than any likely NIT (though at the cost of excluding large
groups of the poor—such as two-parent families—from eligibility). Political
and humanitarian considerations prevent reducing these benefits, thus
vitiating one of the NIT's attractions—the possibility of abolishing the
welfare system._

[0]
[http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/NegativeIncomeTax.html](http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/NegativeIncomeTax.html)

~~~
spangry
Good find. It's worth noting though that the author is discussing the 'Jersey
Experiment', which implemented an 'impure' form of the NIT:

 _Thus, a treatment might offer a guarantee equal to half the poverty line,
which was then about $8,000 for a family of four, with benefits being reduced
by 50 percent of the family 's income. When income was zero, the family would
receive the full $4,000 (50 percent of $8,000). When income reached $8,000,
the benefit would be reduced to zero and the family would "break even" (i.e.,
neither receive negative taxes nor pay positive taxes)._

This is basically the opposite of a 'pure' NIT: where earnings do not affect
the annual cash amount handed out by the government. In other words, under an
NIT, the government would be sending the same amount of money to Bill Gates as
they would send to its poorest citizen.

The NIT discussed above meant that recipients faced _at least_ a 50% effective
marginal tax rate on their first $8000 of earnings, which is a pretty
significant disincentive to work. The whole point of an NIT is to avoid this
'welfare trap' effect.

------
SCAQTony
The United states pulls in $3-trillion in taxes. We have 225-million adults
over 18-years old and if they (we) were handed out $2,000 a month each that
would equal

EDIT: [225 million * 2000 * 12 = 5.4 trillion per year.]

If we're talking about the solutions mentioned in the article I suspect
administrating the various types of handouts may add an additional 50% cost to
that [$5.4 trillion per year.]

A basic income may work for Switzerland due to it's amazingly tiny population.
(Less than half the size of L.A. County) In the United States, I would think
inflation, laziness and complaints that $2,000 was not enough basic income
would rule the day.

~~~
agorabinary
225 million * 2000 * 12 = 5.4 trillion per year.

Basic income arguments usually revolve around numbers. But what of self-
respect? There is something very concerning about faith in a benevolent State-
parent that will feed and clothe us instead of enabling us to do so ourselves,
by removing policies that keep Americans poor.

~~~
Frondo
The state already provides roads, ensures the safety of our food, and gives us
all access to a justice system. What of self-respect? If we want it, we should
be able to derive it from being political beings, from being active and
engaged members of civic society. While you need a purpose for being to have
self-respect, that doesn't have to come from punching a clock.

~~~
SCAQTony
You come from a kind place and I acknowledge that but IMHO, you may be
overestimating the IQ of at last 50% of the citizenry.

I border a poor neighbor in Los Angeles; their goals and aspirations are quite
different then the readers on this site.

Problems with keeping their kids in school, gangs and teen pregnancy come to
mind as the most important issues. It would not be hyperbole to say that a
high percentage of this class can't name the three branches of government, the
mayor of the city, let alone the governor, or their Congress member.

A basic income may provide shelter and food but they all ready have that via
section 8 housing and EBT cards. What they really want is a "job ticket" to
the middle class.

------
duncan_bayne
Worth reading on this topic:
[https://thesnarkwhohuntsback.wordpress.com/favorite-
passages...](https://thesnarkwhohuntsback.wordpress.com/favorite-passages-
from-atlas-shrugged/the-story-of-the-twentieth-century-motor-company-atlas-
shrugged-part-ii/)

------
visarga
It would be necessary to augment UBI with free healthcare and education, and,
maybe, a part of the UBI should be in food or tickets that can be exchanged
for food in stores so as to make sure it is being used for survival.

~~~
strathmeyer
No it is supposed to replace those things.

------
duncan_bayne
This entirely dodges the moral issue of whether it is acceptable to force
people to subsidise others. UBI is particularly problematic in this area, as
given its scale, it is impossible to implement without coercion.

------
intopieces
Focusing on UBI as a national program is a mistake. Something like this would
only gain traction if it were proven at the state level. Remember, ObamaCare
was RomneyCare first.

------
bernardlunn
I found it a good intro to the subject. I am surprised by how negative the
comments here on HN are.

------
ap3
Still don't understand why do we need this, and what would it solve in the US

------
MrsPeaches
Has anyone made an explorable explanation for UBI?

It seems like the perfect candidate.

------
forrestthewoods
wtf. The article doesn't actually answer the question!

The last answer comes closest. But the others aren't even close.

Lame.

