"As of 2014, the annual cost of a UBI would have been about $200 billion cheaper than the current system. By 2020, it would be nearly a trillion dollars cheaper."
Remarkable how much entitlement spending is booked in the near future.
Remarkable how much entitlement spending is booked in the near future.
Meanwhile, $13k * 300m people, results in an expense of 3.9 trillion. Greater than the entire federal budget.
EDIT: I AM WRONG. The spending proposal from the article does not exceed the entire federal budget, because people who earn more than 30k of income get payed a smaller UBI. I did a rough calculation using the best numbers I could easily find describing the USA's income distribution (good numbers are hard to find). The result was that this proposal would likely cost just short of 3 trillion dollars. Significantly less than the entire 3.8 trillion dollar budget, but still more than we currently spend on entitlements.
Since the Fed stopped publishing M2, we don't know how much money is really being created. But it seems to me the logic of "Let's give money to the banks and they will loan it to the people" doesn't work. Here, the argument seems to be: Instead of giving money to the banks with expectations, we just give it directly to the people, cutting out the inefficient middle men entirely.
The M2 growth figures are available and published by Fed sources. They're nowhere near enough to underwrite a basic income, even if none of that newly created credit was being directed towards useful economic activity https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/M2
M2 isn't created by the Fed anyway, it's created by private banks choosing to extend credit to entities they believe are on average productive enough to repay them at prevailing interest rates. It's possible to deter banks from making future loans of course, but I can't imagine doing that to make room for untargeted handouts being a good idea
The monetary base the Fed actually is responsible for issuing is much smaller and has actually shrunk since 2014. https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/BASE
QE was a temporary large-scale response to financial shocks which is designed in principle to be reversible so it's about the worst way of funding the steady stream of expenditure required for BI imaginable.
It also consisted of the Fed buying up swapping the cash for existing financial assets in the form of government debt. If they're giving away the newly minted money instead, the amount the Fed can inject into the economy without generating unwanted inflation is much smaller. That might be desirable for a well targeted short term stimulus programme, but a BI certainly doesn't fall into that category (plus you don't get the fringe QE benefit of shrinking the govt debt/interest burden)
Sorry, typo. I meant M3.
https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/US_Federal_Reserve_ceases_to_pu...
So the population over 21 is about 230M.
That leaves 132 million people drawing from $930 billion, which means everyone gets $7153. For everyone to get $13,000, 71 million people would be allowed to qualify.
This doesn't take into account the taper at all, so it could be stretched to reach more people. But even if 60 million people receive 13k, which leaves ~2.5k for another 60 million, that's still less than 132 million and doesn't align with the author's 6.5k number.
All this is to say: I find the idea appealing because it reduces the cost of bureaucracy and creates autonomy, but I'm not sure if it's feasible.
Sources: https://www.ssa.gov/finance/2015/Overview%20SSA.pdf https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/prog_highlights/i... http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/07/16/156688596/what-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_programs_in_the_United_...
No one is ever shocked about all of the SS trust fund cash put into US treasuries (general fund deficit spending), but always shocked that "thats going to need to be paid back one day."
https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/factsheets/WhatAreTheTrust.ht...
> The Social Security trust funds hold money not needed in the current year to pay benefits and administrative costs and, by law, invest it in special Treasury bonds that are guaranteed by the U.S. Government. A market rate of interest is paid to the trust funds on the bonds they hold, and when those bonds reach maturity or are needed to pay benefits, the Treasury redeems them.
Trust fund stats: https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4a3.html
The mind boggles. We've been living like a college student on credit cards, and the bill is coming due.
Social Security is the largest owner of US Debt: http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2014/10/28/who-owns-t...
The largest owner of U.S. debt is Social Security. Since the Social Security system is a government entity, how can the government own its own debt? Good question. This is where the “house of cards” theory resides. Some believe the federal government is merely moving the IOUs from one shell to another, hoping to escape the watchful eye of its citizens. In any event, Social Security owns about 16% of the debt followed by other federal government entities (13%), and the Federal Reserve (12%.
My guess is when it is time to pay or the money dries up, they are going to just disregard the Social Security debt owed or stretch it way out so the house of cards stays up a bit longer.
I disagree. Taxes with simply rise (as they should've long ago).