• Peaty@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Im the sameI was all in until I did the deeper dive into the literature. Now I see it as realistic as jetpacks.

    • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I think it’s realistic. I just think it’s not the right solution.

      UBI is a massive undertaking, but so is Social Security, Universal Healthcare, or a modern military. The GDP is $23.3T, but the current tax income is only 12-15% of that (approx $4.1T). Yang’s UBI would cost a whopping $4T, but here’s the missing link. As much as we whine like little bitches about taxes in the US, we are quite literally middle of the pack for taxes as a percent of GDP. UBI is realistic, but it would require a full overhaul of our economy.

      I just don’t think a full overhaul of our economy is worth the benefit of UBI. $25B could end hunger in the US, and $700B would socialize food entirely at no cost to individuals. Somewhere in the middle, we’d probably get 90% of the benefits of socializing food with a lot less costs. Housing is the same situation (ironically, the estimated cost to end homelessness is also about $25B, though I don’t know what “subsidized housing for all” would look like). We could do both AND have some money to incentivize being unemployed to counteract job leverage (the one big win in UBI imo) all together in $1T or less, a much less disruptive overhaul for more return.

      And we could throw in universal healthcare for good measure. Yeah, there’s a tax cost, but studies show it pays for itself in individual savings and economic growth