No. 504858 [Reply]
It's assumed that to fund basic income it would mean scrapping a large amount of welfare programs. Far less military spending, and taxing mega-corps/ultra-rich more.7 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.
I've done my own math, to send $500 a month to 250 million people (rough adult population of America), it would cost 1.5 trillion a year.
Let's assume it's not true universal basic income, so social security beneficiaries, people on disability, the rich, prisoners, and other potential exceptions won't get it (or only receive it up to the point of being equal to theoretical basic income).
That's about ~90 million people less
So sending $500 to 160 million people every month only costs $960 billion a year.
$500 isn't enough to stop people from working but it means a world of difference to most Americans (who live paycheck to paycheck), and I think this wouldn't need to increase inflation or instability, if anything it might make the economy better by consumers having this extra money, and the greatly lessened criminal/health costs because of it.
No, the entire budget is less than 5 trillion (and this is the largest budget of all time), and discretionary is 1.49 trillion.
Mandatory is 3 trillion so 1.5 is a 50% increase.>uh let's just increase from 3 trillion to 4.5 trillion so I can NEET it up no big deal
You didn't even read my whole post the cost is lowered to $960 billion a year
And you're not accounting for cutting most other welfare programs, less military spending, and taxing the mega-corps/ultra-rich more.