Minus your SS tax.
Also, remember that the income tax structure is progressive.
Note also that the point of this thread was to determine what could go away in order to be redirected to basic income.
Thanks,
Rob
I expect to pay jack shit because I plan on quitting my job and just living off of minimum income.
You don’t think the housing market would be affected by millions of people suddenly having more income to spend on rent?
Emphasis added. Billion-Trillion, what’s the difference? 
Not really. A major portion of the cost will be paid for by the elimination of existing tax expenditures/graduated rates. For example currently a single person with a $50,000 income pays $6,250 in income tax with a top 25% rate–using just the standard deduction and exemption. That is exactly equivalent to a flat 25% rate (cost $12,500) plus a $6,250 annual basic income ($521/month) resulting in the same $6,250 payment by the taxpayer. And of course a taxpayer with all kinds of itemized deductions is currently paying significantly less than this $6,250 today.
Yes, it would be a huge boon to the economy. Yes, it would likely involve a fair amount of inflation, just like any other economic peak. If inflation is your biggest fear, I guess you think we should stay in a recession forever?
Question: How do you alleviate poverty without giving poor people more money to spend? Or do you simply encourage homelessness and poverty as a good thing for keeping your property values nice and low?
I’d have to question whether the reduction in administrative costs would be so great that they’d outweigh the costs of giving out unneeded services. This plan essentially is putting everyone in the country on the federal payroll without requiring them to do any work - which seems like the ultimate dysfunctional government agency.
The central idea is redistribution. While millions would have more income, other millions would have less as they had to pay the taxes to finance the system. Overall the total amount of money would remain the same.
Your other point however is solid. With a guaranteed safety net and a massive tax increase, you probably would have a significant number of people deciding to drop out of the workforce.
Maybe this was true back in 2010 when some “fiscal conservatives” still retained a glimmer of sanity and the Community Eligibility program you refer to passed Congress with bipartisan support. But now, Todd Rokita, the GOP Congresscritter with foot-in-mouth disease who chairs the relevant subcommittee is pushing legislation intended to cripple the Community Eligibility program.
This isn’t true. It isn’t just redistribution. Poor people spend all their money. Rich people spend a small fraction of theirs. More money circulating in the economy is a stimulus.
In other words, taking money out of a rich guy’s mutual fund and giving it to a poor person who will spend it on goods and services does grow the economy, and thus the amount of money (at least as measured by GDP). By the way, this helps rich people too. Ask Henry Ford what happened when he paid his employees enough money to buy his products.
He’s dead, but I’ll ask you what percentage of Ford’s sales were to his employees?
Are you under the impression that money in a mutual fund is not counted as part of the amount of money in the economy? Service providers, financial institutions, banks, etc. utilize that capital and all of that is in the economy too. What you are talking about is not an increase in the money supply, but a redistribution. One may have a greater multiplicative effect, but you haven’t shown which side that would be.
You offered reasons why redistribution might be a good idea. But it’s still redistribution.
Thanks for that; it was interesting. I’m still concerned that a basic income will lead to generational dependency/poverty but from that podcast it’s obvious people are thinking about it.