Ontario, Canada plans to experiment with giving people unconditional free money

[Endus]

Tax revenue, not production.

You forget two things;

1> In many basic income systems, that basic income will more than offset the difference in net income.
2> Progressive taxation places a heavier burden on the wealthy, not the lower/middle classes. And if you're making over $250k/year, paying a little more in taxes isn't something I'm going to consider a huge negative.

Long-term, if consumption overall increases because the lower/middle classes have more money to spend, that pushes productivity up, to match, which creates more revenue as well.

[Anonymous1038853]

Tax revenue, not production.

Except the tax revenue comes from the new jobs that are created in maintaining the automated systems, and the increased profit margins from not having to pay out to employees. Seriously, the economic value doesn't change. That's precisely the point. Tax revenue is just a reflection of earnings. If automation reduces earnings, it's not implemented. If it increases earnings, then that's where the tax revenue comes from.

There's simply no economic reason why improving the efficiency of some job or process should translate to a societal revenue loss. Say it costs $20k annual to pay someone to do some sort of task. Any implemented automation must save at least $20k annually, otherwise it would not be economical to implement. That saving goes to the investor, and is subsequently taxed, just as it would be if it were an employee's salary instead. In-fact, it's likely that a greater portion of that $20k is taxed, translating to a higher overall tax revenue gain.

[Reeve]

So I thought for fun, I'd just throw together a few numbers, obviously napkin math.

US Population 18/up: ~245 Million
If we pay $1,200/month to each person, that comes to: $3.528 Trillion per year
2016 projected government revenues: $3.5 trillion, of which 1.645T is income tax and 1.112T is SS/payroll tax.
2016 spending on Social Security and Welfare is $990.2B and $383B respectively, for a total of $1.373 Trillion. If you deduct that from the basic income requirement, that leaves a $2.155 trillion deficit to fill.
If we're filling that only with increased income tax, we need to pull in $3.8T in income tax, an increase to 231% of current average rates.

I currently make $80k. My income tax rate, not including deductions or my SS tax, is 19.7%, or ~$15,771/year. If that had to go up 231%, it'd be 45.5%, or ~$36,431/year. The difference between the two comes out to $20.6k/year, or $1721/month. The extra $1200/month the government gives me wouldn't come close to covering it. I'd be out $521/month. Obviously I didn't include my standard deduction in that number, but it certainly wouldn't make up for $521/month.

Not the end of the world, but I could see why many might object.

[Anonymous1038853]

Hypothetical values for the U.S. are rather moot, considering Canada would have implemented this long before the U.S. would even consider it as an option. By the time such values are even relevant, you'll have working numbers to analyze. Better to examine it within the context it will actually be applied.

[Reeve]

Hypothetical values for the U.S. are rather moot, considering Canada would have implemented this long before the U.S. would even consider it as an option. By the time such values are even relevant, you'll have working numbers to analyze. Better to examine it within the context it will actually be applied.

Sure. I'd have done it with Canadian numbers, but I'm a lot less familiar with those.

[Fenixhart]

So basically this raises the "not doing anything for a living" line from 6ft under to "Rent and bills."

This isn't giving people lavash palaces on a silver platter-it's literally just "Here;s enough to not worry about wheter you will live or die by your next paycheck.'

If you want actual Luxury you will still want to work above the minimum. This just raises the floor.


Where is the drawback about not having to worry about basic amenities.?

[Endus]

So I thought for fun, I'd just throw together a few numbers, obviously napkin math.

US Population 18/up: ~245 Million
If we pay $1,200/month to each person, that comes to: $3.528 Trillion per year, of which 1.645T is income tax and 1.112T is SS/payroll tax.
2016 projected government revenues: $3.5 trillion
2016 spending on Social Security and Welfare is $990.2B and $383B respectively, for a total of $1.373 Trillion. If you deduct that from the basic income requirement, that leaves a $2.155 trillion deficit to fill.
If we're filling that only with increased income tax, we need to pull in $3.8T in income tax, an increase to 231% of current average rates.

I currently make $80k. My income tax rate, not including deductions or my SS tax, is 19.7%, or ~$15,771/year. If that had to go up 231%, it'd be 45.5%, or ~$36,431/year. The difference between the two comes out to $20.6k/year, or $1721/month. The extra $1200/month the government gives me wouldn't come close to covering it. I'd be out $521/month. Obviously I didn't include my standard deduction in that number, but it certainly wouldn't make up for $521/month.

Not the end of the world, but I could see why many might object.

Most of these proposals involve a deeper progressive tax rate, not an across-the-board hike. Plus, you can eliminate the standard exemptions, since the Basic Income accounts for that (and is higher). While this adds an additional up-front hurt, it also significantly decreases the necessary proportional increase in tax brackets.

Income tax also isn't the only way to try and pay for this. Higher corporate taxes and so forth are an option, as well.