Approximately $20,000 per person. $1000 a year would have made a nice universal basic income for the last 20 years.
And by "them" I mean, like, 50% of the country.
I'm in Texas, and the maximum amount of cash assistance possible — married parents, multiple kids, demonstrated need, is something like 83$ a month; I think, once?
Huh, but, then you basically die. You can't live with kids on $83 monthly, let alone one-time. Surely there's something else if you don't have a job?
Most safety net assistance isn’t in cash. There’s a stigma associated with the cash handouts — people typically seek food, health and rent assistance.
There is a significant percentage of the US that has no discretionary income in any meaningful sense, and that is something we should be concerned about, but it is nowhere near 50%.
To really fix poverty, you need to address shortages, particularly ones in basic necessities. If there's a housing unit available for everyone, landlords will have no leverage to raise rents. If there's a preschool for every kid, the cost of childcare won't go up. If there's a doctor (really a health insurer - the issue is monopolization of the customer channel) for everyone and you can switch easily, the cost of healthcare won't go up.
If you give money to people and don't fix the underlying shortages, the price just adjusts to capture that money.
An increasing number of necessities are reaching that state, though. The U.S. has about 5 big health insurers, and in a given region you might only have a realistic choice between 2-3 of them. Many regions have only one broadband Internet provider, and one electric/gas/water/sewer/garbage utility. Childcare and housing are competitive, but with an undersupply that's gotten significantly worse during the pandemic. My county closed 75% of its registered daycares during lockdown; fortunately births plummeted and some are coming back, but there've already been pretty significant price increases. A lot of small-time landlords were forced out of the market by eviction moratoriums, so expect even more corporate-owned apartment complexes.
Fix the competition issue and I'm all for UBI, but if you just institute UBI without fixing zoning and antitrust and regulatory capture it's just going to enrich a small class of people.
> squander it on things like new cars or electronics instead of paying off debt or investing for retirement
Still, it would’ve been a nice little boost.
$1000/year may not be UBI in a traditional sense but it also isn't nothing. In many parts of the US that is more than the average monthly rent for an apartment.
Sure so you get, in a good case, 3 months' rent out of it and then you still need to eat. Yes it helps, yes it would be great in addition to other social benefits, but a UBI it is not unless I have a wrong impression of what a UBI is supposed to be.
> but a UBI it is not unless I have a wrong impression of what a UBI is supposed to be.
https://www.businessinsider.com/cheap-grocery-shopping-list-...
Here's an article from 1983:
https://www.nytimes.com/1983/10/16/jobs/defense-spending-its...
> According to the study, for every $1 billion spent by the Pentagon to buy goods and services, 28,000 jobs are created in the private sector. The same investment would create 32,000 jobs if spent on public transportation, 57,000 if used for personal consumption and 71,000 jobs if spent on education, the report contended.
I think you mean per month, not year.
The idea of UBI is to give everyone a subsistence income so they can devote themselves to skill development and career advancement, even/especially while caring for kids. $1000/year doesn't remotely accomplish that.
Which comes out to a whopping $83.33 per month. I think this just illustrates how expensive these UBI plans really are... particularly the ones that flaunt several thousand dollar payments to every tax payer per month.
One thing to keep in mind is that this is half of the military budget, which is less than half of discretionary spending, which is much less than half of total federal spending.
The other thing to keep in mind is that most of the UBI money would be immediately recaptured in income tax. Making it Universal keeps the logistics simpler, but a wealthy person should end up with little to negative extra money from a reasonable UBI implementation.
> particularly the ones that flaunt several thousand dollar payments to every tax payer per month.
Who's suggesting that much? And are they suggesting it for normal circumstances where people are able to work?
Prior to "COVID Spending", the total US budget was $4.5 Trillion in 2019, of which 3.4 Trillion was from revenue, and nearly $1 Trillion was deficit spending[1]. In 2019, the total Military budget was a little above $700 Billion[2]. (these numbers also highlight the absurd levels of spending being contemplated in congress right now, 1.2 Trillion and another 3.4 Trillion - these are huge numbers).
Sure, there's waste in the military budget, but majority of it is indeed well spent (we ask a lot of our armed forces these days, and that requires a lot of money, ie. you could not say, cut the military budget in half without severe consequences).
For a UBI to make a significant impact on someone's life, it will need to be substantial (at least several hundred dollars per month). Cost of living, and therefore purchase power of that UBI varies wildly across the country, but even if we just keep things simple and pay every taxpayer (~144 million people[3]) $500 monthly, that total weighs in at 72 Billion Dollars every month, or $864 Billion annually. (again, just for tax payers)
Some of that money will be recaptured in taxes (income taxes, which is absurd on a UBI, and sales taxes), but majority of it will end up directly in the economy. While good for the economy, that level of spending is just untenable long term for the federal government... and that's only for $500, an in-significant amount of money in major metropolitan areas such as San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles, Seattle, etc. Which is why many people are arguing for $2,000 monthly for all tax payers... and as you can see, the numbers just plain do not work.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_United_States_federal_bud...
[2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/272473/us-military-spend...).
[3] https://taxfoundation.org/publications/latest-federal-income....
You could easily cut a third and match 2000's budget, adjusted for inflation. I bet half isn't even hard if we stop funding things like multi-role fighters.
> and that's only for $500, an in-significant amount of money in major metropolitan areas
UBI doesn't have to pay enough to live anywhere without a job on top.
And again, who is arguing for $2k monthly? That's enough for two people to almost hit median household income. Definitely much more than necessary.
> $864 Billion annually.
Why is that not sustainable? If military cuts take that down to $500B, that's only an 11% budget increase.
If the top 10% of earners paid a bit over a third more income tax, that would be enough to cover it. They're not even taxed that much when you consider capital gains.
You could make it happen without military cuts too, if you wanted.
And make no mistake, $500 a month with no strings attached is enough to do amazing things.
What would the U in UBI possibly mean if it’s conditioned on someone’s judgment of the recipient being able to work? (If they do earn income, you can tax some of it back, but if they simply choose not to and that means you don’t pay them, it’s by no means “Universal”.)
This is another way the US exports the dollar as a worldwide currency, and is able to print money without causing high inflation domestically.