It's very close to 12 trillion dollars (11.76) if you count 'every citizen' from birth to death.
Revenue for the entire US Federal Budget for 2013 was only 2.8 Trillion Dollars
The landscape changes quite a bit if you consider that to be a modified income "floor", where if you are at least 18 years of age, and earn at least $2500 per year, you are guaranteed a stipend that raises you to 200% of the Federal Poverty Level.
The 7,202,000 people who earn between $2500 and $5000 per year would receive a stipend of $1600/mo. while the 10,894,000 who make between $20,000 and $22,500 per year would receive a stipend of $144/mo.
This would cost the US "only"
~845 billion dollars per year if you included everyone who earned >=$2500/year.
~1.1 trillion if you included everyone over the age of 15.
1.8 Trillion/year could be raised to fund this program by:
* Concentrating on paying off our Foreign Debt (245 billion/year saved in interest payments)
* Balanced Budget Amendment (so we can't go back into debt to other countries, and wind up paying interest on that debt)
* Overhaul/Eliminate traditional Social Security ($773 Billion)
* Eliminate Medicare/Medicaid/CHIP ($732 billion)
* Eliminate funding for 'Overseas Contingency Operations', i.e. wars in Afghanistan ($127 Billion after we withdraw our military tentacles)
Tackling these things would give us 1.877 Billion to create a program that would ensure that every adult US citizen would be able to live at or above the 200% of Poverty level ($22,900 per year), no matter what their other circumstances might be.
Medicaid and Social Security are irrelevant when you have a minimum guaranteed income ("Social Security") that allows you to purchase medical insurance ("Medicaid")
Curious to ponder…
Reshared post from +Jo Sparkles
Makes ya go hmmmm
http://www.sott.net/article/267613-Swiss-to-vote-on-2800-dollar-basic-income-for-every-adult
#governmentshutdown
This post has been reshared 2 times on Google+
View this post on Google+
Very interesting +Jonathon Barton thanks.
Interesting read. It would be interesting to see the kind of social and economic effects this would have. People having money could help drive the economy because it would be spent and in circulation, but there would be people who decided not to work or do the least amount possible to get the most from the Government. Now how many people and how much of an impact this would have on the work done and things like average income, I have no idea.
A bigger deal is being made of this than it actually is. This is being voted on because 100,000 citizens signed a petition and Swiss law requires a vote in this scenario. It was not an idea floated by a politician and has not gone through normal Democratic mediums.
+Brett Daugherty Here's the most interesting thing.
Yes, there would be some small number of people who want to get "something for nothing" – but time and again it's been shown that part of what you would call the human condition is to have meaningful work. People deteriorate (seriously) when left with a whole lot of nothing to do.
Allowing people the freedom to take jobs that pay fuck all for an hourly rate, without having to live in poverty?
I imagine you'd see a very sharp rise in community volunteering.
Work 1 day a week slinging burritos for Taco Bell, spend 5 days a week as a Teacher's Aid at your kid's school.
Spend Saturday night tending bar, spend Monday through Friday working on your Master's degree.
I imagine homelessness would also fall dramatically, as well, as nobody would be forced into homelessness through circumstance.
Also, establishing a baseline income means that the American Dream is still alive – if it's your choice, you can become more educated, learn a trade, get a better job, and make more than the baseline. F'rinstance, implementing this wouldn't change my situation at all. I'd continue to pay roughly the same tax rate, and some portion of those dollars I pay in taxes would continue to support my mother (through the newly modified "Social Security", since she's retired and makes less than 200% of the 2014 Federal Poverty Guideline). In fact, her standard of living would slightly increase (by about $50/mo, I think) against the baseline.
People who make in the 9-12/hour range (19k-24k) would be someplace in the middle. They'd continue to pay Social Security, unemployment, etc. taxes at work, but would get some of that back in the form of a stipend that would be in the $120-$350/mo. range, and in the case of the person I'm specifically thinking about (who is making $9/hr and would receive a $348/mo stipend), about half of that would turn around and go directly back out the door as a Health Insurance Premium paid through her employer, and that premium is currently not "affordable", given the other line items in her budget, like "food" and "rent".
I think the world would be a much better place, despite all the howling from idjit conservatives about "freeloaders", considering that roughly 80% of Americans already make more than 200% of the poverty level, (and in most cases, a LOT more) I'm pretty sure that there aren't many people itching to make a whole lot less money than they are now…but it would lift tens of millions of people out of various levels of poverty, and convert them from people who are barely hanging on, into happy productive citizens. =)
I agree with +Jonathon Barton. While employed, all I could think about was "if I had extra time I would do this and that" (which often referred to different types of volunteering). But when I lost my job, no work + no income had me so depressed it was difficult to get out of bed. And I've always felt that if I were set for life, I'd have a part time job or do odd jobs for people.
People say to get a job in something you enjoy, or you are interested in. That's the dream we all want. But the reality is that we go for the job that pays the best and has the best benefits. I've lost sight of what I enjoy and what I am interested in because I've been so focused on having and keeping a job that'll keep me off the street.
This is all very interesting, and +Jonathon Barton makes some great points, but let's look at the big picture.
1- Switzerland has an estimated population of roughly 8 million, just 2.5% of the U.S. population. 12 states in the U.S. have individually greater populations than the entire Swiss nation.
2- The GDP (PPP) per capita is roughly the same (and I barely understand that stuff, so this is easily refuted if you wish to do so).
3- Switzerland is an entirely different economy; has different social values than the U.S.; and has a significantly different industrial, scientific, and business community and history. If I was required to serve in a national conscript Army at the age of 19, I would expect more back from my Government than what we have seen in the last 10 years.
So it's interesting to speculate on this, but not a practical consideration for the US…or even for Switzerland if +Seth Jefferies is correct.
+Jonathon Barton Not trying to start a political argument but I think you're view is a little optimistic. People who do make enough to work 2-3 days a week don't always spend the rest of there day volunteering, they spend it working to buy fancy things, but again that's just my opinion.
Like I said I have NO idea how many would or wouldn't freeload, or what would happen. If I could figure that out I'd probably be in politics trying to make this world a lot better with my knowledge. And its largely a moot point it would NEVER happen in the US (I mean look what universal healthcare did to the government) and I doubt it will pass in Switzerland too. The 100,000 needed for a vote could be even be a small political party in the grand scheme of things. But its an interesting thought experiment.
First you said:
"* Eliminate Medicare/Medicaid"
Then you said:
"…purchase medical insurance ("Medicaid")"
So, I'm wondering what cheap (See: "tax-subsidized") insurance are you referring to, given that you eliminated it in an earlier step?
Why do people think they are entitled to talking other peoples money.
This is just crazy. If you work, you get paid. why is that so hard to understand.
Well, +Jeff Boyce, the underlying idea comes down to arguments of social contract, collective effort, and general welfare being a universal goal:
1. Taxes are the price to be a citizen, and get citizen's benefits.
2. Collective bargaining achieves a greater ROI.
3. Raising the overall level of well-being in a society has effects beyond the recipient of the welfare.
Disagreeing with those three premises is pretty common, but it's worthwhile to understand how others think even if you don't agree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_burn_centers_in_the_United_States
+Megan Faith The subsidy would, for most people receiving subsidies, cover most or all of the premium cost of unsubsidized health plans available for individuals on the open market.
http://goo.gl/OB9s0C
The linked plans are unsubsidized "gold star" plans that have no annual deductible. They're significantly better than what my employer offers, though my employer covers about 75% of my current plan as a benefit.
My presumption is that people making near the upper limit of the stipend range would be significantly more likely have "subsidized" insurance available to them through their employer, and that people in the lower earned income tiers would have larger subsidies available with which to purchase 'free market' health insurance. This is a presumption without investigating options like the group plans that are available for the self-employed, etc.
My additional presumption is that the ACA stands, and anyone who is eligible for a substantive stipend would also generally be eligible to purchase insurance from the exchanges, with or without the subsidization that's part of the ACA.
Here is the list of plans in Colorado, sortable by Deductible
http://goo.gl/ZoQNni
+Jeff Boyce +Megan Faith said it better than I could, but I'd like to point out to you (in addition to what she said) that if you truly believe that you oppose 'taking other people's money' and spending it for the common good of the entire society you live in is A Bad Thing, then you should stop using electricity for your refregerator and airconditioning, and you should stop driving on roads that were built for you with taxes, and you should stop using water that comes from your Municipal water service. Oh, and stop flushing your toilet – that's taxpayer supported, too. Don't drive in the winter when the road has been plowed for you. Don't water your lawn. Don't listen to the radio (regulated by the Federal Communications Commission, and supported by taxes) or watch TV (same). Don't expect to ever receive Social Security (that's DEFINITELY taking other people's money) or Unemployment if you lose your job (you work, you get paid. It's that simple), or Worker's Compensation if you're injured (you work, you get paid, it's that simple) because your employer no longer had to abide by the safety rules that were enforced by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. No more overtime pay, either. Oh, and 20 hours per week of 'overtime' is now mandatory. And unpaid, because +Jeff Boyce said that taking other people's money and spending it on other people is A Bad Thing, and the Department of Labor no longer exists to ensure that workers aren't exploited.
+Jeff Boyce You already pay for a
millionbillion3.8 TRILLION things that benefit People Who Are Not You.When you are old, do you not wish to be provided for?
When you are injured, do you not wish to have a helping hand?
When you have the misfortune to be laid off, do you not want a safety net there to catch you until you find another job?
Why would you deny these things to Everyone Who Is Not You?
That's obviously fallacious. Saying "I don't want my money taken to pay for x" doesn't obligate the speaker to deny himself things that he presumably already pays for through taxes. (So long as the speaker consumes less than he pays in taxes, it's not even hypocritical.)
e; Not to mention that many roads, power supplies, retirement plans, and savings are not done through the state and are still functional. Taking things to such a statist extreme is silly.
e.g. "You don't want to pay for my lunch? I guess you can't pay for your own lunch either."
There are many valid counterarguments to the points I made before. I was merely enumerating the underlying arguments so that discussion could be more than topical disagreement.
There is still a strong burden of proof that needs to be met on all three points.
+Jeff Boyce made a silly blanket statement.
I countered with one. =)
I don't claim it wasn't silly, or a massive overbroadening of the point.