Something that isn’t mentioned here is the likelihood that UBI would be a huge boost to the economy, especially if we tax nonproductive income or assets to pay for it. Most hyper-rich don’t spend their money. They collect it. This is why trickle-down never worked. The “theory” was that if you let the rich keep more of their money they will spend it or invest it and money would flow and the economy would improve. It didn’t work because that’s not how the rich treat their money. The rich save, the poor spend. If you want to increase cash flowing through the economy the quickest way is to give the poor an influx of cash. They will spend it on consumables, this ups demand and drives an increase in production which increases employment and tax revenues.
cite
According to that report, households who received government benefits actually have LESS food security than those that don’t receive benefits. That doesn’t seem to favor UBI at all.
(of course, I could be reading it wrong, I admit)
See my post #40. That calculation was assuming that only 30% of people would receive it and the rest will work for a living. If you’re giving it to everyone, the calculation changes, and it would require about $2.1T/year. Since kids need to be taken into account (hopefully they require less than adults) - let’s say $2.5T.
Current US welfare annual spending is 411B. Where do you intend to find the more than $2T extra to finance this scheme?
Poor people have less food security. That’s not exactly surprising.
The question to ask isn’t “do they have more or less food security than the general population?” The question should be “do they have more or less food security than they would have without the government aid?”
While they may have less food security than the general population, it may be that they’d be even worse off without the aid.
I don’t think you are reading the report right, or I am not reading it right. But I think it compares the food security of poor people who don’t receive benefits with food security of poor people who DO receive benefits. And it looks like that poor people who DO receive benefits have less food security than poor people who DON’T receive benefits. Again, I welcome correction if I am reading it wrong.
Why would it NOT go to everyone? It’s universal, after all.
… because there is not nearly enough money to do that. Unless you’re willing to triple the taxes.
It’s not my idea 
Isn’t that a bit of an oversimplification?
When the rich save, they don’t – as a rule – do it by stuffing cash under a mattress; the idea is, if they’re not investing it or spending it, they’re putting it in a bank that pays interest. But that doesn’t just magically happen; the bank is counting on the fact that someone is going to walk in and say “Hey, I wanted to buy a boat and hire some guys who are out of work so we can get into the fishing business; can you lend me the money, I’ll pay you back with interest once I start turning a profit?”
And when he’s almost done paying off that loan, figure someone else is walking in and saying “I want to start an ice-cream parlor; figure I’ll hire an out-of-work guy to man the cash register while I scoop out the ice cream? Can you lend me the money to make that happen, I’ll pay you back with interest?”
And so on and so on, with the bank charging a higher interest rate on those loans so it can pay a lower interest rate to the just-saving-up-some-money types – while using the difference to keep a banker employed, in the business of thus helping businesses get going – and, so, yeah, while we were maybe hoping the rich guy would buy a boat for himself, or invest in an ice-cream parlor, or whatever, the money he simply puts in the bank still gets invested in an ice-cream parlor just like it still gets used to buy a boat, just like out-of-work folks get jobs.
Do I have that right?
This would be the case if banks were lean, and were waiting for someone to deposit money into them so that they could lend it out.
As there are currently $2.3 trillion in excess reserves looking for a place to be invested, putting more money into the bank is not going to stimulate the economy.
The banks are begging people to take their money away from them. They don’t make any money on it while it is just sitting there in their vaults. Interest rates are at historic lows, but still, there is not enough people borrowing to open a new ice-cream parlor to use those reserves up.
The only way to get those reserves used is if people borrow that money to open or expand businesses, and that will not happen unless people have money to spend in them.