undefined | Better HN

0 pointscoldtea12y ago0 comments

>The argument that with UBI people will still do that only for more money is crazy, since the taxes would have to be so high to support UBI that the costs would dwarf what people could afford.

Actually you could support UBI by just taxing 1-2 people in the whole US.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

yummyfajitas12y ago· 2 in thread

Could you crunch the numbers and explain how? A back of the envelope calculation will suffice.

coldteaOP12y ago

Well, it might be a slight exaggeration to just tax 2 persons. But it's based on the extremely skewed power-law distribution.

The richest 2 people in america have around 120 billion dollars between them. 100B are enough to directly give $5000 to 20M people under coupons and welfare today.

Even $1000 are more than the yearly income for billions of people in places with far less physical resources than the US (and close enough food prices). Heck, 200 million Pakistanis live with a national GPD of around 250 billion dollars for comparison ($1300 per person).

And the richest 400 share around 2 trillion between them. We haven't even touched the trillions they save from off-shore accounts, shady accounting etc. And that's for private citizens, one would also want to extent it to corporations.

Also, you won't be giving a basic income to anyone making above a certain amount (no reason to give it to someone already making several tens of thousands of dollars a year).

Not to mention that these people, unlike Warren Buffet or Trump, cannot hoard the money they get, so those get re-invested in the economy pronto.

yummyfajitas12y ago

The richest 2 people in america have around 120 billion dollars between them. 100B are enough to directly give $5000 to 20M people under coupons and welfare today.

Lets say you tax away that 2 trillion, which is mostly illiquid productive capacity rather than easily redistributable liquid cash. That'll provide a $7,200 basic income for about 275 million Americans for one year. Then what?

Of course, in real life, you can't redistribute Zuckerberg's wealth as cash. The most you could do is give every American a few shares of FB, a few shares of MS, etc.

Also, you won't be giving a basic income to anyone making above a certain amount (no reason to give it to someone already making several tens of thousands of dollars a year).

We already do that. It's called "welfare", not "basic income".

Not to mention that these people, unlike Warren Buffet or Trump, cannot hoard the money they get, so those get re-invested in the economy pronto.

You are confusing consumption and investment.

Buffet and Trump invest the bulk of their income. Buffet invests in railroads and insurance companies, Trump invests in condos. Peter Thiel invests his money in companies like Facebook, Linkedin and Deep Mind.

Consumption is when you spend the money on stuff like big screen TVs or food.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse