this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2025
1405 points (99.2% liked)

Microblog Memes

6360 readers
4413 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 0 points 17 hours ago (22 children)

It's not "universal" unless/until it's given to everyone. Until then, it's just another targeted welfare program, "offered to a select portion of a city's population instead of all residents", as your link says.

You can't say UBI has been "proven mostly successful" without actually doing UBI, considering its main hurdles are related directly to giving out that much money to everyone. A UBI of $12000/year ($1000/month) for just all working-age people in the US (a bit over 200 million) would cost the government $2.4 TRILLION, yearly.

Even seizing the entirety of every US billionaire's net worth (est. $4.5 trillion), assuming you could convert it straight across into cash 1:1 (which you can't), and cutting defense spending (~$850 billion), the two most common ways I've seen people claim we can pay for UBI in the US, even if defense was cut to literal zero (also absurdly unrealistic), that still wouldn't even cover the cost of this UBI for three years.

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 4 points 17 hours ago (14 children)

I've had this discussion before. You might want to do some more research and have sources. I would advise you to look at really good sources about the following points:

  • "It’s not “universal” unless/until it’s given to everyone."
  • "...would cost the government $2.4 TRILLION, yearly."
  • "Even seizing the entirety of every US billionaire’s net worth and cutting defense spending wouldn’t even cover the cost of this UBI for three years"

Your numbers and projected income is way wonky. I'll discuss it when you come back with sources from the studies of UBI and why most experts think they worked being referenced.

[–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 0 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

You might want to do some more research and have sources.

I brought up a handful of VERY easily-verifiable, non-controversial data points, and just did some simple math. But, I guess, for the extremely lazy:

  • $1000/mo x 12 months in a year = $12000/yr
  • Number of working-age (16-64) Americans = ~210 million (I rounded down to 200 and counted working-age only (i.e. no elderly/retired), two things that make my argument WEAKER)
  • $12 thousand x 200 million = $2.4 trillion
  • Combined net worth of US billionaires is ~4.5 trillion. But hey, I found a much higher estimate that puts it a bit above 6 trillion. That gets you almost a whole extra year!
  • Latest US defense spending budget is $850 billion

Assuming stripping defense down to zero (which again, is an absolutely absurd hypothetical made for the sake of argument, and making my argument AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE) and applying the entire $850 billion to the UBI price tag, you're left with a yearly cost of $1.55 trillion. And even using the higher estimate of $6 trillion from the billionaires, 1.55 goes into 6 less than 4 times.

The only thing 'wonky' is your refusal to accept mathematical reality.

P.S. Telling me to "look at really good sources" for 'it's not universal if it's not given to everyone' made me laugh pretty hard.

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 1 points 16 hours ago

I’ll discuss it when you come back with sources from the studies of UBI and why most experts think they worked being referenced

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (19 replies)