A Guaranteed Basic Income of $583 might work in the U.S.A.?

[GoldenEagle]

A Guaranteed Basic Income (GBI) of $583 might work in the U.S.A.?

Here’s a summary of how this would work from this second article from Business Insider in 2013. Which by the way, initially seems a lot more plausible that the $1000 a month article I linked earlier this week.

 

1. Settle on a monthly benefit. This 2^nd Business Insider article initially proposes $583 a month guaranteed basic income for all Americans.

 

2. Not universal or for all citizens. But not so fast! The “rich” (anyone making over $60,000 a year) are excluded from this guaranteed income so it’s not universal. So this is essentially a tax on the “rich” and indeed a redistribution proposal. The math is a little fuzzy here. They proposed $500 in one paragraph but $583 is the number used in the example. Benefits are reduced by $233 a year for each $1,000 rise in income over $30,000 a year. The article proposes that someone earning $45,000 would receive a guaranteed basic income of $3500 yearly or $291.67 a month. Anyone earning more than $60,000 a year receives nothing. I did the math myself and this would likely cost about $700 Billion based on a articles I read from Think Progress and this US Census source for 2014 Population, % of Population under 18, % of Population over 65.

 

Here's a breakdown:

$30,000 yearly household income would see a GBI benefit of $6,996.00 yearly. Plus $1500 yearly per child.

$31,000 yearly household income would see a GBI benefit of $6,763.00 yearly. Plus $1500 yearly per child.

$32,000 yearly household income would see a GBI benefit of $6,530.00 yearly. Plus $1500 yearly per child.

...

$40,000 yearly household income would see a GBI benefit of $4,666.00 yearly. Plus $1500 yearly per child.

...

$45,000 yearly household income would see a GBI benefit of $3,501.00 yearly. Plus $1500 yearly per child.

...

$50,000 yearly household income would see a GBI benefit of $2,336.00 yearly. Plus $1500 yearly per child.

...

$55,000 yearly household income would see a GBI benefit of $1,171.00 yearly. Plus $1500 yearly per child.

...

$65,000 yearly household income would see a GBI benefit of $0.00 yearly. Plus $1500 yearly per child.

 

3. Adults with children receive an additional benefit. All parents would receive$1500 yearly or $125 monthly per child. I personally think there probably would need to be some sort of maximum benefits for say 4 or 5 children. Assume about 54.2 million children so $81.4 Billion.

 

4. Seniors (over 65) do not receive this basic income. The argument is senior citizens have social security with an average monthly benefit of $1,3000. I think senior citizens are a huge voting block and would likely never go for this if they were excluded. 

 

How to pay for this? From the article. In parenthesis my thoughts.

 

Quote

 

First, eliminating all state and federal programs for low-income Americans will save almost $800 billion. (This number is mind blowing)

 

Second, additional funding comes from elimination of benefits in the Affordable Care Act. Obamacare subsidies will be $107 billion a year starting Jan. 1, 2014 and the Medicaid expansion is another $71 billion. (Note: As I understand it this would eliminate only portions of AHA or Obamacare)

 

Third, the remaining $180 billion in funding can come in the form of new revenues. Eliminating the mortgage interest deduction $71 billion and implementing a carbon tax $105 billion would just about be enough. 

Phasing out the programs costs $206 billion for a total cost of $1.147 trillion.

 

It would potentially eliminate a lot of jobs. It would potentially create a lot of jobs. It would allow those with lower income to use the money where they needed it. What do you think?

[SavedByGrace1981]

The most logical way (meaning it won't happen) to deal with those in poverty in on an individual basis.  A blanket, one-size-fits-all government policy will be fraught with boondoggles and inefficiencies. On top of that - like all government programs - it will be focused on perpetuating itself - its reason for being. 

It won't be interested in actually solving the problem.

 

[ayin jade]

Quote

Third, the remaining $180 billion in funding can come in the form of new revenues. Eliminating the mortgage interest deduction $71 billion and implementing a carbon tax $105 billion would just about be enough. 

This bothers me a whole lot. 

Im not in favor of any wealth redistribution. After what I got gouged on this year from new taxes, Im really not in favor of any more new taxes either, or elimination of the mortgage interest deduction. 

 

[missmuffet]

Nope, I am not for this basic income scheme.

[Running Gator]

15 minutes ago, ayin jade said:

This bothers me a whole lot. 

Im not in favor of any wealth redistribution. After what I got gouged on this year from new taxes, Im really not in favor of any more new taxes either, or elimination of the mortgage interest deduction. 

 

The tax code should not be used for any sort of social engineering, to include the mortgage interest deduction.  We should not add taxes to sodas or cigarettes or anything like that and people should not get any sort of a break for certain action, like owning a house.

[FresnoJoe]

Beloved There Is Only One Way

Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain. Psalms 127:1

To Build A Nation

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14

IMO

[GoldenEagle]

1 hour ago, SavedByGrace1981 said:

The most logical way (meaning it won't happen) to deal with those in poverty in on an individual basis.  A blanket, one-size-fits-all government policy will be fraught with boondoggles and inefficiencies. On top of that - like all government programs - it will be focused on perpetuating itself - its reason for being. 

It won't be interested in actually solving the problem.

 

The cost to deal with the issue on an individual basis would be prohibitive. It would cost way too much for individual plans to be made. I guess I thought this might be a good alternative to scrub the current system. 1. Surely you agree the current system doesn't work?

2. I see your point about the system perpetuating itself. I wonder too, assuming such a proposal became a reality, if it wouldn't simply be an issue of the $583 increasing over time to where it's no longer sustainable?

3. What in your mind would be a reasonable, cost effective alternative to Guaranteed Basic Income (GBI) in dealing with the current situation we are in with how welfare is handled in the U.S.?

God bless,

GE

[GoldenEagle]

1 hour ago, ayin jade said:

Quote

Third, the remaining $180 billion in funding can come in the form of new revenues. Eliminating the mortgage interest deduction $71 billion and implementing a carbon tax $105 billion would just about be enough. 

This bothers me a whole lot. 

I'm not in favor of any wealth redistribution. After what I got gouged on this year from new taxes, I'm really not in favor of any more new taxes either, or elimination of the mortgage interest deduction. 

 

Until I read this article I wasn't in favor of any form of wealth redistribution either. Wouldn't even contemplate it or listen to the other side. Then after reading the comments of folks who are living at under $60,000 a year it made me rethink my position. Particularly after hearing of one family of 4 who make $25,000 a year. This kind of program would allow the parents to go back to school for example and get better education. It allows the family who makes less than $900 a month and $600 in WIC to have more flexibility.

Perhaps an elimination in other forms of taxes then might be in order? 1. Surely we can all agree we need to re-shuffle the U.S. federal and state budgets? I had to go back and look up what carbon tax stood for. Here's a good working definition: a tax on fossil fuels, especially those used by motor vehicles, intended to reduce the emission of carbon dioxide.

As a homeowner I'm not keen on the idea of reducing mortgage interest deductions either. It's a big incentive for homeowners. Whether it's a well developed myth or an actual benefit would be interesting to discuss. 2. Assuming for a minute you would be for this GBI, what would you cut from the federal budget instead?

I wonder if this stance makes me shift from a conservative to a more progressive in fiscal terms? LOL

3. What in your mind would be a reasonable, cost effective alternative to Guaranteed Basic Income (GBI) in dealing with the current situation we are in with how welfare is handled in the U.S.?

God bless,

GE

[GoldenEagle]

55 minutes ago, bopeep1909 said:

Nope, I am not for this basic income scheme.

I'm not sure if it's a scheme. It certainly is different than anything we have going currently. This would allow people who have an income of say $900 a month and WIC of $650 a month flexibility in order to better pay their bills for example. Can you see it from that perspective?

God bless,

GE

[GoldenEagle]

53 minutes ago, Out of the Shadows said:

The tax code should not be used for any sort of social engineering, to include the mortgage interest deduction.  We should not add taxes to sodas or cigarettes or anything like that and people should not get any sort of a break for certain action, like owning a house.

Interesting OotS... (1. Why did you pick that handle? Welcome to the forums by the way!)

2. Why no tax breaks? What would you do instead?

I personally think it's a great idea to heavily tax sodas, cigarettes, alcohol, etc.

I think too it would be interesting to contemplate the following:

3. Question for you or anyone else interested in discussing this: What legally and provably defines a household when the two people aren't married?

4. What in your mind would be a reasonable, cost effective alternative to Guaranteed Basic Income (GBI) in dealing with the current situation we are in with how welfare is handled in the U.S.? Or are you for it?

God bless,

GE