|
Top-level
 @onepict I would agree with you that a negative income tax, also known as universal basic income, would be an effective means of funding free software. It would facilitate all kinds of creativity by allowing otherwise intelligent and passionate people to fully use their skill to work on many new projects of social and scientific benefit. The economics are solid; if more people can start businesses, GDP goes up and the size of the state as a percentage will decrease over time (i.e. lower taxes). 6 comments
 @libreleah @onepict no need to taper when you have income tax (or that already does the tapering if you prefer). That takes any means testing out of it. @onepict 150billion if wages go up a lot. Otherwise I'd say UBI would probably cost about 200-250 billion annually at first, in the UK. For reference, current government income is about £1 trillion. Some taxes would go up at first, but we can expect more people would start businesses if they have more time / less stress due to the support. So GDP goes up. The rest of the money can be found be increasing productivity in the public sector, especially healthcare. UBI is quite feasible in the UK. @onepict I mention healthcare because it's a huge percentage of government spending, in fact it's even been on the news recently. With UBI, more people would live at a higher standard, especially in terms of diet and exercise, which would result in fewer illnesses in the first place. You could probably implement UBI without even increasing taxes at all, if I'm being honest, but any such rises would be temporary; a lot of people already get certain benefits anyway (in-work e.g. child tax credit) @onepict It would probably increase productivity in most workforces too, especially ones with lots of people on low wage. if you're no longer stressed about money, you can focus on your job better, whatever job that is. so like, i think 200billion per year is a reasonable figure as to how much UBI would cost in practise, but even then you would probably phase it in; some people get it first and gradually everyone does. the cost quickly becomes structural in nature. just more efficient welfare. @onepict So the question is either: How can we afford it, or how can we not afford it? Scrimp on a few other budgets and reduce waste in a lot of other areas to all but cover the cost. Don't forget many people already get welfare hence 780 billion becoming more like 150 billion. The cost of administration in welfare would also reduce quite dramatically, if it's automatic; no more DWP assessments. Most people are on PAYE too so the government knows how much money you make. UBI can be automated. |
Gregory's Server
@onepict 40 million adults of working age in UK * £18,000 per year (elderly already get state pension):
£720 billion
Taper it, like how universal credit (welfare system in the UK) already works; as people start earning more, their UBI reduces.
Given current median wages, and expected wage growth, you could probably knock the UBI bill to ~150 billion.
Universal credit already exists; make it opt-out instead of opt-in. Auto-enroll everyone. The infrastructure for UBI already exists, in the UK.