|
Yeah the only problem is you multiply the US population by a very modest basic income like $15,000/year and the figure you get is whooooops. I mean it's not impossible but with basic income and the current federal tax revenue (alone! not counting state revenues) you'd have to collect about 50% of US GDP in taxes. So... that's not going to happen. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 04:15 on Nov 2, 2014 |
#
¿
Nov 2, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 19:05 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I'd like to see your numbers on this. Last time I saw numbers it wasn't all that far out there, though we would need to impose fairly high tax rates on the top percentages of income. $15,000 x 340 million people = $5.1 trillion. 2014 US GDP is 17.3 trillion (check wikipedia). FY 2013 Federal tax receipts were 2.8 trillion. 5.1+2.8=7.9 7.9/17.3=0.4566 I was off by 4% in my mental math but whatever, that's 45% of US GDP for only a basic income near the poverty line and federal tax receipts (in a time of deficit too) not counting any other tax burden. I guess if you assume that basic income will wipe out Social Security and non-health financial assistance outlays the numbers get better by about a trillion dollars, but you have to assume that all those things are not financed by deficit spending currently in order to remove them from the tax receipts column. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 05:41 on Nov 2, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Just doing OOM, the GDP of the USA is in the e13 range, while the GMI is in the e12 range, so it's at most ten percent. Of course, with those numbers a family of four is making ten grand more than median household income, so this potentially drops significantly if we take kids into account etc. Yes, 9 trillion is so insignificant when compared to 10 trillion. Your argument has persuaded me!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Also hey genius: Wow you're being hostile immediately when I was just posting really basic figures. So children are out? And we can eliminate people on social security because they wouldn't actually be drawing a basic income? Or are you saying that because they already draw money from the government, they can be eliminated? Social Security outlays last year were $800 billion and I already mentioned them! Please be less hostile to basic math. Effectronica posted:Haha, you ignored the part where your "low income" becomes decidedly middle-class with a nuclear family in favor of whining about approximations. Yes. Low income becomes middle class when you have 2-4 incomes, but if we're eliminating children it gets murkier again. Why are you gloating? Also "whining about approximations" is not fair, you flat out stated that because GDP is in the ten trillions range it logically must be at least ten times larger than tax receipts, which are in the trillions range. Then you showed that you didn't even bother to check US GDP before hopping into the conversation and were out by a factor of 3. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 06:37 on Nov 2, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Also hey genius: Taking a figure of 320 million and knocking off a trillion dollars from federal tax receipts for social security and welfare programs to be replaced by basic income puts the figure at 38% of GDP; looking more reasonable but it still doesn't include state tax burden and makes the optimistic assumption that all social security and welfare money was paid for by taxes in the first place. Ok eliminating old people and children you're now at 32% GDP federal tax burden but a family of four now receives $30,000/year. Poverty line is $23,000. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 06:46 on Nov 2, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Our GDP would be quite a bit higher if we didn't have so many people who couldn't afford to buy anything but the bare basics. Or do you not understand late capitalist economies? Demand talks. This scheme would have so many second order effects I think we'd need to have a team of economists work up a paper on it before saying how it would shake out. (or insulting anyone's intelligence for that matter!)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Because that's you just being intellectually dishonest and trying to create a worst case scenario from no sense whatsoever - a veritable Mises. What the gently caress?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2014 07:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 19:05 |
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I'm calling you a liar who chooses to ignore facts. I thought the reference was clear. You're being a complete rear end in a top hat, I misremembered and posted new numbers based on the numbers you demanded. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 08:23 on Nov 2, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2014 08:04
|
|