Universal Basic Income
SEE ALSO: CAFR
SEE ALSO: Sovereign Wealth Fund
We support the idea of implementing a Universal Basic Income on a trial basis on a city, county or state level (not on the national level yet). There are simply too many unknowns that must be addressed before it would be prudent to dive headfirst into a nationwide program (see below).
We believe that a social "safety net" should always be in place to ensure that every member of society has access to the food, clothing, shelter and emergency heath care that every human being needs in order to live a dignified life. Our society is rich enough to ensure that we provide these things to those people who cannot afford to provide themselves.
Giving $1,000 per month to every American citizen does not come anywhere close to achieving the goal stated above. Such a program would cost nearly $3 trillion dollars per year. Giving $2,000 per month to every American citizen would also NOT be enough, and that would cost nearly $6 trillion dollars per year.
Giving $1,000 per month to every American citizen does not come anywhere close to achieving the goal stated above. Such a program would cost nearly $3 trillion dollars per year. Giving $2,000 per month to every American citizen would also NOT be enough, and that would cost nearly $6 trillion dollars per year.
None of the theoretical Universal Basic Income proposals have addressed the reality of implementation. The following issues must be addressed BEFORE a national Universal Basic Income could have a chance to succeed:
- It's not enough money! $1,000 per month is not even close to enough money for anyone to live on. In many areas of the country, that would not even be enough money for rent.
- Where will the money come from? The amounts are staggering! Universal Basic Income will do nothing to protect people's jobs, it will add trillions of dollars to the budget deficit and the national debt.
- There is no Constitutional authority for a direct sales or Value Added Tax. To institute a national Value Added Tax, many people believe that a Constitutional Amendment would be needed. Many proposed plans would never survive a Supreme Court challenge.
- Simply giving people money goes against the work ethic upon which the United States is founded. A person with a full time job works 40 hours a week for at least 50 weeks a year which totals 2,000 hours per year. If we simply raise the minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 per hour, that would add far more than $1,000 per month to every working person's income and would help to raise millions of working people out of poverty, at NO COST to the federal government.
- The use of robots and artificial intelligence not only displaces workers, it also displaces the taxes that are collected on those worker's hourly wages and yearly salaries. Since machines utilizing artificial intelligence are replacing human workers, why not consider taxing the use of machine labor the same way we tax human labor?
- Companies that use robots and artificial intelligence to replace human workers also avoid paying into Social Security and Medicare. Yang's proposal does not address the shortfall that will befall the Social Security and Medicare trust funds caused by lower numbers of workers paying into these programs as well as the matching funds that their employers conveniently avoid when they replace workers with robots and artificial intelligence.6. Raising the minimum wage would actually help to lower the federal deficit by generating additional income, Social Security and Medicare taxes, instead of adding trillions of dollars to the national debt.
- Universal Basic Income does not address wealth inequality in any meaningful way. Giving $12,000 per year to people who earn over $100,000 per year or over $250,000 per year or over $1 million dollars per year will just enable them to add to their savings and increase wealth inequality. UBI will actually make wealth inequality even worse, while bankrupting the country at the same time that even more money ends up in the hands of the very people who are already the wealthiest and most powerful.
- The average low-income individual will spend the entire $12,000 per year, so the net result would actually be an enormous wealth transfer FROM the federal government, THROUGH individuals TO the largest companies and wealthiest CEOs and stockholders of these companies that would be accomplished through increased spending and consumerism.
- The free market will adjust to the UBI in ways that can easily be predicted. It is very likely that a UBI will lead to rampant inflation. Landlords will realize that they can easily raise rents since everyone has an extra $1,000 per month. Employers will feel less pressure to increase wages. Poorer individuals will feel the pain of higher prices progressively more than those who are more wealthy.
- Many versions of the UBI would actually harm the poor because anyone getting more than $1,000 per month in other government benefits would not see any additional benefit but would still be subjected to the additional taxes needed to fund the UBI.
- Many UBI proposals can be seen as Trojan Horses that are designed to be appealing to those who do not look at the proposal closely. On the surface, UBI appeals to voters who see the opportunity to receive FREE MONEY. It is not designed to actually help them to keep their jobs and earn a living wage in return for their hard work or benefit the people who really need assistance. It is not designed to address wealth inequality, and if a UBI is not properly structured and implemented, it will ultimately make income inequality worse!
The second part of Ted Halstead's climate solution (below) is a modest Universal Basic Income.
The following quotes are quite often MISUSED in stating that the people below advocated for a Universal Basic Income as it is currently defined. The people below advocated for a FORM of wealth transfer that may be related to the current ideas regarding Universal Basic Income, but to state that their recommendations are the same as any currently proposed UBI is NOT true.
Thomas Paine, 1796:
Out of a collected fund from landowners, “there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance,. . . to every person, rich or poor.”
Martin Luther King Jr., 1967:
“I am now convinced that the simplest approach will prove to be the most effective — the solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a now widely discussed measure: the guaranteed income.”
Richard Nixon, August 1969:
“What I am proposing is that the Federal Government build a foundation under the income of every American family . . . that cannot care for itself–and wherever in America that family may live.”
Milton Friedman (Nobel-winning economist), 1980:
“We should replace the ragbag of specific welfare programs with a single comprehensive program of income supplements in cash -- a negative income tax . . . which would do more efficiently and humanely what our present welfare system does so inefficiently and inhumanely.”
Bernie Sanders, May 2014:
“In my view, every American is entitled to at least a minimum standard of living . . .There are different ways to get to that goal, but that’s the goal that we should strive to reach.”
Stephen Hawking, July 2015:
“Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality.”
Barack Obama, June and October 2016:
“The way I describe it is that, because of automation, because of globalization, we’re going to have to examine the social compact, the same way we did early in the 19th century and then again during and after the Great Depression. The notion of a 40-hour workweek, a minimum wage, child labor laws, etc. – those will have to be updated for these new realities. What is indisputable . . . is that as AI gets further incorporated, and the society potentially gets wealthier, the link between production and distribution, how much you work and how much you make, gets further and further attenuated . . . we’ll be debating unconditional free money over the next 10 or 20 years.”
Warren Buffett, January 2017:
“you have to figure out how to distribute it . . . people who fall by the wayside through no fault of their own as the goose lays more golden eggs should still get a chance to participate in that prosperity, and that’s where government comes in.”
Bill Gates, January 2017:
“A problem of excess [automation] forces us to look at the individuals affected and take those extra resources and make sure they’re directed to them in terms of re-education and income policies . . .” (Gates later suggested taxing robots.)
Elon Musk, February, 2017:
“I think we’ll end up doing universal basic income . . . It’s going to be necessary . . .There will be fewer and fewer jobs that a robot cannot do better. I want to be clear. These are not things I wish will happen; these are things I think probably will happen.”
Mark Zuckerberg, May 2017:
“We should explore . . . universal basic income so that everyone has a cushion to try new ideas.”
Out of a collected fund from landowners, “there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance,. . . to every person, rich or poor.”
Martin Luther King Jr., 1967:
“I am now convinced that the simplest approach will prove to be the most effective — the solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a now widely discussed measure: the guaranteed income.”
Richard Nixon, August 1969:
“What I am proposing is that the Federal Government build a foundation under the income of every American family . . . that cannot care for itself–and wherever in America that family may live.”
Milton Friedman (Nobel-winning economist), 1980:
“We should replace the ragbag of specific welfare programs with a single comprehensive program of income supplements in cash -- a negative income tax . . . which would do more efficiently and humanely what our present welfare system does so inefficiently and inhumanely.”
Bernie Sanders, May 2014:
“In my view, every American is entitled to at least a minimum standard of living . . .There are different ways to get to that goal, but that’s the goal that we should strive to reach.”
Stephen Hawking, July 2015:
“Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality.”
Barack Obama, June and October 2016:
“The way I describe it is that, because of automation, because of globalization, we’re going to have to examine the social compact, the same way we did early in the 19th century and then again during and after the Great Depression. The notion of a 40-hour workweek, a minimum wage, child labor laws, etc. – those will have to be updated for these new realities. What is indisputable . . . is that as AI gets further incorporated, and the society potentially gets wealthier, the link between production and distribution, how much you work and how much you make, gets further and further attenuated . . . we’ll be debating unconditional free money over the next 10 or 20 years.”
Warren Buffett, January 2017:
“you have to figure out how to distribute it . . . people who fall by the wayside through no fault of their own as the goose lays more golden eggs should still get a chance to participate in that prosperity, and that’s where government comes in.”
Bill Gates, January 2017:
“A problem of excess [automation] forces us to look at the individuals affected and take those extra resources and make sure they’re directed to them in terms of re-education and income policies . . .” (Gates later suggested taxing robots.)
Elon Musk, February, 2017:
“I think we’ll end up doing universal basic income . . . It’s going to be necessary . . .There will be fewer and fewer jobs that a robot cannot do better. I want to be clear. These are not things I wish will happen; these are things I think probably will happen.”
Mark Zuckerberg, May 2017:
“We should explore . . . universal basic income so that everyone has a cushion to try new ideas.”
