Three words is not doing the math. Show your work!

Hey man, do your own homework.

OK:

~225M Americans 20+ years of age * $12,000 = ~2.7T.

As a point of reference that's around 15-16% of GDP. It's also about 90% of current US gov't income or 80% of US gov't expenditures.

In other words it's really fucking expensive! I'm not saying the math is impossible but the conspicuous absence of details from most people saying it's a good idea is pretty telling.

Over 50% of government expenditure is on social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, and other social services. A large percentage of that is inefficient and wasted. If you implemented UBI, you could get rid of all of that. Sure, the cost may be 80% of the current spend; but you could eliminate over 50% of it. What's left is a 30% increase in federal taxes.

Right now, I pay close to 50% in taxes living in SF in one of the top tax brackets. I imagine state taxes would go down as a result of UBI too. I despise the fact that 90+% of my taxes go to things I don't believe it. That said,I'd be glad to pay the 50-60% taxes if I knew it went to a basic income. And if I knew that it insured that if I ever lost everything, I'd have enough to survive with some dignity.

> Over 50% of government expenditure is on social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, and other social services.

This is wrong (unless your definition of social services is broad enough to include things like schools and I doubt you want to dismantle the public education system).

> A large percentage of that is inefficient and wasted.

This is also wrong. Social Security is a direct cash transfer and Medicare and Medicaid are among the most efficient insurance programs in the world.

> I imagine state taxes would go down as a result of UBI too.

Sometimes I like to imagine a world of dragons and unicorns. But then I wake up and resume living in the real world.

Do the math.

He already did, he couldn't find any way to make the numbers work and is challenging you to find a solution.

There was no such analysis in what I responded to, nor anywhere else by him when I typed it. (Not sure there is even now.) Am I supposed to read his mind?

Sure, that obviously works as long as we model the economy as a static entity that never changes in response to stimuli, in which we model "dollars" as being able to buy an infinite amount of goods and services at the pre-change levels.

But that's not how the economy works. The rich can provide "dollars", but we can't raid them for man-hours of child-care, or care for the elderly, nor can they provide professional health care. They've got the same 168 hours a week the rest of us do.

This doesn't say that "BI can't work"... it does say you can't model the economy statically, use the prices and valuations of today, and assume that rewiring the fundamental economic fabric of society will result in no changes. You can't do that at this scale.

Here's how that works...

99% of people agree with you on that, but 75% of those people have no idea they're considered rich.

That how all populist ideas work. Take from the few to give to the many. Then, come to find out, there are too few to take from and too many to give to. So, in the end it becomes take from the many and give to the few.

good luck.