It would be a lot less difficult than you might assume. Andrew recommends that the Freedom Dividend be funded by consolidating some social programs and imposing a 10% VAT. Current welfare and social program recipients would be offered the option of keeping their current benefits or receiving $1,000 in cash, with no strings attached; most people would pick cash.
A Value Added Tax (VAT) is a tax on the goods and services that a company generates. It’s a fair tax, and it makes it far more difficult for wealthy firms to avoid paying their fair amount by concealing earnings and income. A VAT is not a new concept. A Value Added Tax or something similar is already in place in 160 of the world’s 193 countries, including the whole European Union, which has an average VAT of 20%.
1. Current spending: Welfare, food stamps, disability, and other programs cost between $500 and $600 billion each year. Because persons already receiving benefits would have to choose between preserving their current benefits and getting the $1,000, the cost of the Freedom Dividend would be reduced.
Furthermore, we presently spend over $1 trillion on health care, jail, homelessness programs, and other similar services. People would be able to take better care of themselves, avoiding the emergency room, jail, and the streets, and would be more functional in general, saving $100 to $200 billion. By assisting individuals in avoiding our institutions, which is when our costs rise, the Freedom Dividend would pay for itself. According to some research, giving a poor parent $1 can result in as much as $7 in cost savings and economic growth.
2. A Value Added Tax (VAT): Our GDP has grown to $19 trillion in the last decade, an increase of $4 trillion. A VAT of half that of Europe would generate $800 billion in additional revenue. Because income tax cannot be collected by robots or software, a VAT will become increasingly vital as technology advances.
3. Increased revenue: Putting money in the hands of American consumers would spur economic growth. According to the Roosevelt Institute, the economy will rise by $2.5 trillion and 4.6 million new jobs will be created. Economic development would provide between $800 and $900 billion in new revenue.
4. Top-income taxes and pollution: We can reduce financial speculation while also funding the Freedom Dividend by abolishing the Social Security ceiling, enacting a financial transactions tax, and ending the favorable tax treatment for capital gains/carried interest. We can add a carbon fee to that, which will be used to partially pay the Freedom Dividend, leaving the remaining balance to cover the program’s costs.
How much would Andrew Yangs freedom dividend cost?
The gross cost of the Freedom Dividend is simple to calculate. According to the UBI Center1, an open source think tank exploring universal basic income policy, there are around 236 million adult citizens in the United States, according to Yang’s Freedom Dividend. The total annual gross cost of the dividend at $12,000 per share would be $2.8 trillion.
Yang would pay for the Freedom Dividend with two more offsets in addition to tax revenue. First, people who decline the cash transfer in favor of their present benefits and those who give up their current benefits if they choose the cash benefit would save money for the federal government. The UBI Center estimates that this effect will counteract $151 billion per year.
Second, Yang claims that his Freedom Dividend will boost the economy. Individuals would earn more money as a result of this economic growth, which would broaden the existing tax base. According to his website, economic development will generate between $800 billion and $900 billion in new revenue per year.
While the UBI may be able to provide a short-term increase in economic activity, it is highly doubtful that it will be able to generate considerable long-term growth.
It’s more likely that his overall proposal will shrink the economy and tax base in the long run. While his plan’s three key taxes (VAT, carbon tax, and payroll tax hike) are efficient revenue generators, they will tend to limit labor force participation by lowering after-tax rewards to working.
How much would a universal basic income cost?
The core of the UBI, we believe, would be a tax-free monthly income for all adult citizens, regardless of need or employability. There is a case to be made for adding children who live at home, but not at adult income levels. Every adult over the age of 18 would get a US$900 monthly “social dividend,” or US$10,800 per year (proportionately less for children). Children’s payments would begin at the age of one and gradually grow as they grew older. The monthly income for a family of four with two young children may be set at US$27,000, just above the US federal poverty threshold (FPL) of US$26,200. In other words, UBI would be designed to completely eliminate poverty. With 128.6 million families in the United States in 2019, the overall cost of UBI at this level would be roughly US$3.5 trillion per year, according to the Census Bureau. Some existing government spending for targeted social services based on income would be eliminated under the UBI.
Does the freedom dividend stack with Medicare?
Yang outlined the Freedom Dividend’s trade-off to a supporter who asked for explanation at an event in New Hampshire last month.
“The freedom dividend is in addition to Social Security and anything else linked to health care, such as Medicare. It is in addition to housing help “Yang was the one who responded. “Cash and cash-like advantages are the only things it doesn’t stack on top of. So SNAP, heating oil, and other programs are effectively attempting to get cash in your hands in order to manage an expense.”
Yang has also stated that the Freedom Dividend will not affect existing benefit programs, and that no one will be forced to transfer to UBI if they receive more from one of the “cash like” programs than their Freedom Dividend. Nonetheless, he believes that the majority of people would prefer the dividend.
Where does money for UBI come from?
UBI would ensure that every citizen in a regulated society receives a regular payment from the government that is sufficient to meet their basic needs. The majority of UBI ideas would be supported by taxes and would enhance or replace existing welfare programs.
We still don’t know! Although there is substantial evidence in favor of cash transfers in general, no country has yet adopted a UBI on a large scale. However, our knowledge of the effects of cash transfers in general, as well as data from UBI pilots around the world, suggests that it’s worth putting to the test.
- In Kenya, users in our UBI initiative in rural Kenya receive around $0.75 (nominal) per adult per day, given monthly for a period of 12 years. It would cost around $5,000 per month to offer a UBI to a town of 200 adults. More information about our UBI trial in Kenya may be found here.
- In the United States, the CBPP estimates that providing a $10,000 per year UBI program would cost more than $3 trillion per year. There are numerous options regarding how to raise funds for a program of this magnitude. The economists Wiederspan, Rhodes, and Shaefer proposed a Negative Income Tax policy that would totally eliminate poverty by providing basic income to residents below the poverty level with a 50 percent phase-out rate. The suggested approach would cost only $219 billion each year, which is less than the sum of existing social program funding.
- In 2016, Switzerland rejected a referendum that would have established a monthly UBI of 2,500 Swiss Francs (about $2,555). The entire cost, according to news reports at the time of the vote, was estimated to be 25 billion Francs per year.
A minimal income floor is established by both a UBI and a negative income tax (NIT). People who earn less than a “zero-tax threshold” receive a cash payment rather than paying income tax under an NIT. As people earn more money, this benefit declines. An NIT isn’t universal because it focuses on the poorest members of society, but it would provide payments adequate to cover basic necessities.
After taxes and government payments, a UBI funded by a progressive tax rate and a negative income tax can have comparable income distribution effects, but an NIT would require a smaller gross budget to fund.
- How well the government can accurately track income levels and respond to changes in income in a timely manner.
- How quickly NIT benefits diminish as beneficiaries earn more money, and how this affects their motivation to work harder.
- Whether or not a program is structured to be universal rather than focused on the poor has an impact on how it is regarded.
To date, no country has adopted universal basic income on a national scale. Other forms of cash transfer programs have been implemented in many nations. It is conceivable to offer revenue models to fund a UBI in many nations. It remains to be seen whether those models are politically possible, as well as the real impacts of establishing a UBI.
No. Socialism is a political and economic system in which the community owns the means of production. A Universal Basic Income (UBI) provides every citizen with an unconditional guaranteed income but does not alter the ownership structure of businesses.
How much would a 10 VAT raise in the US?
Even after covering the cost of the UBI, a ten percent VAT would raise nearly $2.9 trillion over ten years, or 1.1 percent of GDP.
The impact on the economy, as with any tax, will be determined by how the government spends the money. However, if all other factors were equal, it would be better for the economy (i.e., less distortive) than raising income tax rates.
To avoid short-term economic disruption, the VAT proceeds should be used to stimulate the economy in the early years, and the Fed should accommodate the VAT by allowing consumer prices to grow.
According to the Tax Policy Center, a VAT combined with a UBI would be exceedingly progressive. It would boost the income of the lowest-income 20% of households by 17% after taxes. The tax burden for middle-income people would remain same, while the wealthiest 1% of households’ incomes would decrease by 5.5 percent.
Although it may appear counterintuitive, the VAT works as a 10% tax on current wealth because future spending can only be funded with existing wealth or future wages. The VAT’s implicit wealth tax, unlike a tax on accumulated assets, is extremely difficult to avoid or evade and does not need asset valuation.
A VAT could also be beneficial to states. While states are not required to follow the new federal law, doing so could help to reform the structure of their consumption taxes, which commonly exclude services and needs while taxing companies. The provinces of Canada provide a diverse range of opportunities.
How much would a US VAT raise?
To contribute to the fiscal solution in the United States, we suggest a value-added tax (VAT). A 5% broad-based VAT, combined with subsidies to mitigate the regressive effects, could raise around $160 billion per year, or about 1% of GDP.
Why is universal basic income a bad idea?
Because UBI is designed to ignore the aspects of life that make families more or less reliant on government assistance — such as having a child with a serious illness or having a work-limiting condition — it would result in a highly wasteful allocation of resources.
Is basic income coming in 2021?
According to a research released in 2021 by Canada’s Parliamentary Budget Officer, a national basic income program identical to Ontario’s would cost roughly $85 billion in 2021-2022 and slash poverty rates by almost half.
She did add, though, that a large portion of the cost would be offset by abolishing the programs that basic income would replace, such as income assistance or different refundable tax credits.
Does Norway have basic income?
UBI, also known as basic income, is a plan that pays a set amount of money to all people of a country, regardless of their employment status or income. UBI strives to avoid or alleviate poverty and improve citizens’ quality of life.
At the moment, no country has implemented a universal basic income approach. There are several debates, movements, and discussions about them around the world, as well as some experiments. The map below shows which nations have tried UBI in some form.
According to the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), basic income has five distinct characteristics:
Models of universal basic income differ in terms of funding sources, amounts provided, and other factors.
Universal basic income, like all programs and concepts, has proponents and opponents, as well as benefits and drawbacks. Supporters argue that universal basic income promotes liberty, community, the battle against cruel working conditions, and fair access to technological advancement. They claim that UBI permits college students to pursue degrees that are meaningful to them rather than merely those that would earn them money. Because payments are made automatically, the government would spend less time administering welfare than it currently does. Finally, while there are numerous additional arguments for basic income, it may make it easier for couples to start families by removing the stress about the high costs of raising a child.
Opponents of UBI, on the other hand, claim that the model must be funded in some way, which will require everyone to pay more taxes. People may be disincentivize to work because there are no prerequisites for receiving UBI (evidence of employment or willingness to pursue work). Free income may also cause inflation, defeating the goal of raising the overall standard of living.
Andrew Yang, a 2020 presidential candidate in the United States, ran on a universal basic income plan called the Freedom Dividend. The Freedom Dividend is a response to rising automation, which will undoubtedly rob one out of every three jobs in the United States during the next decade. Yang’s idea would give each adult in the United States $1,000 per month ($12,000 per year), a “partial dividend” that would help but not totally support adults and force them to cease working. Alaska, North Carolina, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Iowa, and California have all tried small-scale basic income schemes in the past.
Norway has the most similar system to universal basic income. Norway is a welfare state, which ensures that all Norwegian residents living in the country have access to basic services such as education, universal health care, and income in the form of social security or benefits. Norway, on the other hand, sets strict requirements for citizens who want to receive government benefits, such as looking for work, abiding by the law, voting, and paying taxes.
In 2018, Finland undertook a basic income experiment with 2,000 unemployed persons who were chosen at random. The participants were given 560 euros ($640) per month and reported that they were happier and healthier. They further stated that, despite the fact that the sum was only 50 euros more than what they were receiving from unemployment benefits, no paperwork was filed to obtain the money.
BIEN is working to promote and implement a universal basic income in numerous nations throughout the world. Several nations are debating or debating models, and others are conducting citizen experiments to evaluate if UBI is effective.
Does UBI cause inflation?
- The Universal Basic Income (UBI) is a proposed system that would give individuals with a minimal income to help prevent poverty and close economic gaps.
- Some proposals propose that a UBI be paid to anybody earning up to a certain amount of money (e.g., $50,000 per year), whether or not they are employed. Other suggestions propose that a UBI be distributed only to people who have lost their jobs — especially, those who have lost their jobs due to automation.
- The main argument against, or disadvantage of, a universal basic income system is that it has the potential to produce runaway inflation, raising the cost of living.
Can universal income work?
Most UBI schemes are based on the premise that individuals should be paid just enough to get by, but not enough to live luxuriously. People will still be motivated to labor for more money in this manner. The monthly cheque allows them a little additional income to spend on indulgences or store for a rainy day in good times. It ensures that no one goes hungry on the streets during difficult times.
The approach, according to proponents, provides a number of distinct advantages. It’s a straightforward approach to tackling poverty that’s significantly less complicated than the enormous array of social services available in the United States today. It can also help cash-strapped families minimize financial stress and enhance their health.
Furthermore, UBI can safeguard employees from the effects of a changing economy. Some think that if done correctly, it could even benefit the economy as a whole. And there’s a lot of data to support these claims.
It Combats Poverty
The most basic argument for universal basic income is that it has the potential to fully eliminate poverty in the United States. If you give everyone enough money to live on, no one will be able to live on less than a subsistence level.
UBI has unquestionably demonstrated its ability to alleviate poverty in other countries. The Berkshire Bread Act of 1795, the world’s first basic income program, substantially reduced infant mortality among the impoverished in rural England.
More recently, experimental projects around the world have demonstrated that cash payments considerably improved people’s living standards, including one run by the NGO GiveDirectly in rural Kenya, one run by SEWA Bharat in India, and one run by Innovations for Poverty Action in Uganda. Recipients improved their diets, improved their health, and invested in new resources that enabled them to work and earn more money.
Of course, all of these UBI beneficiaries were in far worse shape to begin with than the majority of Americans. Even the lowest of the poor in the United States have access to indoor plumbing and free education. Trials have proven, however, that UBI and its near relative, NIT, can enhance the lives of low-income individuals in affluent countries.
- The Nixon era was a time when the United States was at its most powerful. The Nixon administration conducted NIT experiments in towns around the United States in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Although the program’s early results were discouraging, a review of the program years later revealed that it had a significant positive impact on users. Their household wealth increased, and their children were better fed and stayed in school for longer periods of time.
- The United States of America Today The Alaska Permanent Fund’s minuscule payouts have a substantial influence on state poverty rates, according to a 2016 research from the University of Alaska Anchorage’s Institute of Social and Economic Research. Between 2011 and 2015, roughly 25% more people would have slipped into poverty if they hadn’t existed.
- Canada in the 1970s. Mincome (a portmanteau of “minimal income”) was an experimental program run by Canada in Manitoba in the 1970s. Economist Evelyn Forget discovered in a 2011 research published in the journal Canadian Public Policy that the program enhanced participants’ physical and mental health, as well as their prospects of finishing high school.
- Canada in the present. The province of Ontario ran a basic income pilot in three communities from 2017 to 2018. The Basic Income Canada Network found that beneficiaries raised their savings, reduced their debt, and improved their physical, mental, and social health as a result of the trial.
- Finland. Around the same period, 2,000 unemployed people in Finland were randomly selected and given a monthly stipend of 560 euros (around US$638). The study’s findings demonstrate that grantees were far better off financially, physically, and mentally than non-recipients.
It Reduces Red Tape
Of course, Universal Basic Income isn’t the only approach to help the impoverished. Currently, the federal government and state governments manage hundreds of benefits programs in the United States. Subsidized housing, home heating assistance, health-care programs such as Medicaid, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program are among them (SNAP, the new name for food stamps).
However, obtaining assistance through these programs might be difficult. The sheer number of different programs makes it difficult for people to find the benefits they require. Furthermore, each program has severe eligibility requirements. Proof of income, age, locality, family size, and work may be required. Unemployed people are not eligible for several benefits.
With all of these restrictions, figuring out which programs you may apply for, applying for them all, and collecting the funds can be a full-time job in and of itself. And once you’ve received your benefits, the government frequently imposes restrictions on how you can spend them.
The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, or WIC, for example, provides food assistance to new moms and expectant mothers. However, recipients can only use it to buy certain items that the government has determined are the best for achieving their nutritional requirements.
Our existing benefits system throws a heavy strain on claimants in many ways. In a 1968 television appearance, economist Milton Friedman made this remark. According to him, the existing system requires applicants to jump through numerous bureaucratic hoops in order to acquire a variety of advantages. An NIT plan, on the other hand, would assist them by simply “providing them money, which is what they require.”
Red tape is inconvenient for everyone, not only beneficiaries. It’s also expensive. According to a 2012 study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), administrative expenditures account for up to 10% of all federal aid spending. With no constraints, a UBI scheme would require far less paperwork, allowing nearly all of the money collected to go straight to recipients.
It Reduces Stigma
Another issue with the existing benefits system is that receiving government “handouts” carries a social stigma. Many individuals in the United States regard low-income people who take SNAP benefits as lazy, dishonest, or morally weak. However, these viewpoints do not apply just to public assistance, such as tax benefits or Social Security.
As a result, many people who may be eligible for benefits never apply. Some people are embarrassed to accept charity, while others fear hostile reception from aid workers who regard them as undeserving.
According to the CBPP, approximately 18% of Americans qualified for SNAP benefits in 2016, while only about 14% of Americans participated in the program. According to a study conducted by the University of New Hampshire in 2016, fewer than half of the families who are eligible for WIC services actually receive them. In addition, a study published in the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management in 2004 indicated that stigma lowered people’s utilization of welfare and Medicaid services, even when their financial need was extreme.
Even if the stigma isn’t strong enough to prevent someone from receiving benefits, it can be damaging. For example, in his book “The Broken Ladder,” psychologist Keith Payne describes the moment he discovered the free lunches he’d been receiving at school were a perk his peers didn’t have. He got self-conscious about his appearance and nearly stopped speaking in class.
In 1969, President Richard Nixon made a similar case when he proposed the Family Assistance Plan, a guaranteed income program. The existing assistance system, he said, “robbing people of dignity.”
Universal basic income has the potential to be a kind of government assistance that is stigma-free. Because the money would be distributed equally to all Americans, no one could be judged for needing or accepting it. However, if UBI is merely a supplement to existing welfare programs, it will not remove the social stigma associated with other types of government assistance.
One method to get around this is to create a scheme that only pays people who earn less than a specific amount. This could be accomplished through NIT or by phasing out high-earner payments. However, because it would not be a truly universal basic income program, it might not totally erase stigma.
It Could Reduce Inequality
Some claim that, in addition to eliminating poverty, universal basic income could help to reduce economic disparity. The safety net provided by UBI would make it simpler for low-income people to make decisions that would help them advance. Instead of commencing work at an early age, individuals may seek a college degree that would increase their future earnings.
In his 2017 Harvard graduating address, Zuckerberg stated that he was only able to launch Facebook due of the financial security net provided by his well-to-do family. He claimed that if he had needed to work instead of coding, he would have done so “I wouldn’t be standing here now if it weren’t for you.” He claims that a universal basic income program would benefit everyone “a buffer to experiment with new things.”
At this time, there is little data to support or refute the premise that a universal basic income can assist alleviate inequality. Most UBI studies have been too limited in scope to have an influence on income inequality, which is a large-scale problem.
The Alaska Permanent Fund is the only modern UBI program that affects a considerable number of people. According to a 2018 study by the career information and job search website Zippia, Alaska has the lowest levels of income inequality of any state in the United States. Furthermore, according to Bloomberg CityLab statistics, Alaska is one of just four states in the United States where inequality has not increased by at least 10% since 1979.
It Protects & Empowers Workers
The concern of automation displacing employment or lowering wages is one of the reasons why so many people are talking about universal basic income right now.
Musk claimed in a 2016 interview with CNBC Make It that the United States would require some sort of universal basic income in the future to compensate all of the jobs displaced by new technologies. In his Freedom Dividend proposal, Yang raises this concern, citing forecasts that “a third of all working Americans will lose their job to technology in the next 12 years.” And Sam Altman, the founder of the startup capital firm Y Combinator, funded a UBI experiment to see if it could mitigate the economic devastation he predicts technology will bring in the coming decades.
According to some experts, there is little reason to expect that new technology will result in widespread joblessness. For example, in 2017, investor and tech pioneer Marc Andreessen told Recode that there is a “recurring worry” about machines stealing people’s work “every 25 or 50 years,” but it has never happened.
The “Luddite fallacy” or “lump of labor fallacy,” as some economists refer to it, is the mistaken belief that there are only so many jobs to go around, and that giving employment to machines inherently means fewer jobs for people. They contend that technological advancement, in the long run, creates more new jobs than it kills.
Other economists disagree, claiming that this viewpoint is faulty. Even if you think that automation would produce new jobs in the long run, it will nevertheless knock many people out of work in the short term, according to investor Albert Wenger.
Even in the long run, the new occupations created by technological advancements may not be as well paid as the old ones. Most of the additional income created by the modern, high-tech economy goes to wealthier, more educated people, according to economist Paul Krugman’s New York Times column, while unskilled individuals fall behind.
Both Wenger and Krugman agree that universal basic income is the best method to aid these low-wage workers. It has the potential to provide:
- There is a safety net. At the very least, UBI may ensure that people who are unemployed or struggling to make ends meet on minimum wage have enough money to get by. It might assist displaced people get by while they retrain for occupations that are being created as a result of technological advancements.
- There will be more job options. Having this safety net in place could allow workers to leave jobs they despise. A worker with a hard job or an unpleasant boss would be able to quit without worrying about how they’d make ends meet until they found another job if there was more economic stability.
- More negotiating power. Workers have more bargaining leverage with employers for higher compensation or better benefits if they don’t have to take any job to survive. They could simply walk off the job and live off their UBI if they don’t get what they want. Workers may regain some of the power they have lost as a result of the weakening of labor unions.
- A Chance to Explore Other Possibilities Unskilled workers may be able to leave their low-paying employment and pursue other alternatives if UBI is implemented. They may return to school or spend more time looking for work, as many workers in Ontario’s UBI program did. They may also afford to try a new business venture, such as freelancing, or swap in their jobs for unpaid work, such as volunteering for a good cause or staying at home with their children.
It Could Improve the Economy
The most startling argument in support of universal basic income may be found in a 2017 research by the Roosevelt Institute, a left-leaning think tank. It used the Levy model to forecast how three distinct UBI plans would effect the economy as a whole: $1,000 per month for each adult, $500 per month for each adult, and $250 per month for each child.
According to the analysis, the economy would increase considerably if the government supported any of these UBI initiatives by increasing the federal debt. The most generous program, which would give each adult $1,000 per month, would grow the economy by around 12.56 percent, or $2.5 trillion, by 2025. It would also result in the creation of 4.6 million new employment.
The economy would benefit much less if the government paid for the UBI scheme by hiking taxes. In fact, according to the basic Levy model, there would be no benefit at all because tax rises would eat up the extra money that people would have received under UBI.
When the authors changed the model to account for the fact that UBI would put more money in the hands of lower-income individuals, who are more likely to spend it, they discovered that, even with a tax-funded scheme, the economy would still receive a boost. They estimated that the economy would rise by $515 billion and 1.1 million jobs under these conditions.
These findings are debatable. The Levy model, according to a Vox piece on the findings, is based on “particularly rosy assumptions” about how taxes, expenditures, and deficits effect the economy. It is assumed, for example, that although though the economy was not in a recession in 2017, consumer demand was nonetheless low. To put it another way, Americans were not purchasing enough goods. Giving people more money, especially low-income ones, would thereby stimulate the economy.
Many other economic models, on the other hand, show that a UBI program financed by debt would harm the economy rather than improve it. According to the Penn Wharton model, which is widely used by impartial organizations, any major increase in deficit spending will cause interest rates to rise, harming American consumers and businesses.
