I'm going to throw out some numbers and facts and would like feedback from both sides of the aisle as to pros/cons and also what I may be failing to account for.

We currently spend roughly 2.75T on what is referred to as "Social security, Unemployment and Labor".

Broken down a bit further:
1.22T Social security
865B Income Security
677B Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services.

There are currently ~ 125M households in the US.

If we leave 500B aside that leaves 2.25T.

2.25T/the poorest 120M households = $18,750 per year or 1562.50 per month per household.

That's far more than the average SSI disability and/or welfare check as well as slightly higher than the average SS check.

Some folks who've made good $ and paid into SS for 40+ years may receive a SS retirement check of just over $3000.

I couldn't find good data on what # of folks collect that much.

I would be against any system that reduced the SS retirement income of those who contributed their whole life, but surely we could do something close to what I've described with a little tweaking without impacting these folks.

Seems like a way better system than what we have currently without requiring any additional spending.

While some will surely take advantage of the system and be lazy (no different than now), some portion might use the extra income to potentially take a lower paying but more rewarding job.

Maybe some could afford to be a stay at home parent, which is a HUGE bonus and greatly increases the likelihood of a child's future success.

Still some other portion might add their own capital to the UBI to explore self employment/ entrepreneurship opportunities because they have that safety net to fall back on.

It seems more fair overall than simply rewarding laziness like we seem to be doing now.

It could have huge implications for overall mental health in this country (which is sorely needed), as well as a great opportunity to see broader innovation.

Universal basic income is inevitable, it's just a question of when. Automation means that there is no realistic pathway to sufficient opportunities for employment in the near future. I think the job market will almost certainly be too small to support the population within the next 20-30 years. Ideologically I'm not a huge fan of the idea, but ultimately I don't see a way around it. We're moving in an economic direction where our economy is going to continue to produce more and more, but with decreasing human input. The corporate world is going to need consumers for everything it's producing. The only way to keep the full market of consumers is going to be to distribute some share of the profits to the general public. If anybody can put together a manageable proposal to make it work, I would get behind it. We're generally better off starting such initiatives before they're absolutely necessary.

I agree completely dahs.

Would you be willing to elaborate on your thoughts re:

"Ideologically I'm not a huge fan of the idea".

Especially wrt the math presented in the OP.

Isn't what I laid out (or something similar) a much better use of that 2.25T than what we're currently doing with it? Or have I overlooked something significant here?

we pay for SS based on our work history and how much we have contributed. I contributed to SS for almost 50 years and I have no guilt about what I am taking out. My mom contributed to SS for even longer and towards the end of her life it was her only source of income. If you don't contribute much to SS, you won't get much out of it. I am only talking about social security. I know next to nothing regarding welfare, so Won't comment on it.

same with unemployment, when you work you contribute to unemployment insurance.. You don't work, you can't get unemployment insurance.

I won't bite on the UBI issue. In essence I agree with Dahs. The concept of paying folks to do nothing but exist is abhorrent but the economic future as laid out by Dahs would not seem to offer many alternatives.

BUT, I will weigh on on our Social Security retirement system.
It's broken.
But an easy fix.
Why do rich folks get OUT of paying the Social Security TAX on their incomes at a certain level.
We less well off folks pay on 100% of our income, yet folks who earn MORE get to STOP paying in EVERY year once they reach a set income level.

The Social Security fund is projected to go bust because it's paying out MORE than it takes in.
Seems to be only two fixes.
1. Means test it!! That means rich folks won't get out what they (potentially) paid in. That makes it a tough sell and prolly not workable.
2. Make the wealthy pay MORE in by requiring they pay on ALL their paychecks not just the 1st half of whatever % they actually pay in.

Some folks are finished paying IN to Social Security EACH year come June or July. Meaning the pay no Social Security taxes on 50% of their yearly income. That extra money would balance the Social Security system in a heartbeat!!
The rich get WAY too many tax advantages! And in our retirement scheme, THEY got a HUGE perk! It pays to have influence within the political system!

I believe THAT should be fixed BEFORE we tackle some sort of UBI.

So maybe I was unclear, but in the scenario I laid out in the OP, the UBI would replace unemployment, welfare, and the average SS payment.

I mentioned I couldn't find good data on how many folks are due more than the ~$1500 based on the fact that they've paid in more.
It's why I left 500B aside. Would that cover it all? Not sure, but probably close I would imagine.

I don't have any issue with making the wealthy contribute the entire year. However, I do want to be perfectly clear that these needn't be mutually exclusive AND I've laid out that the current budget is already there and adequate to implement this scenario.

Furthermore, regardless of how abhorrent it may be to pay folks to simply exist, it is exactly what we've already been doing for nearly a century now.

"Furthermore, regardless of how abhorrent it may be to pay folks to simply exist, it is exactly what we've already been doing for nearly a century now."

I don't believe this is true for the GENERAL public. Yes, there are SOME on SSI that (IMO) may qualify as "paying folks to exist" that should NOT be and IS an abuse of the system, but who are we paying to simply exist now? (other than those on SSI that should NOT be!)

I was under the impression that welfare benefits nowadays are monitored fairly closely and that since the "era of big government is over" admin. that welfare folks actually had to qualify and even then their "benefit" was limited..............

Am I wrong?............... and if so...................where do I sign up!

Posted by laramiebob on 2/8/2023 11:15:00 AM (view original):
"Furthermore, regardless of how abhorrent it may be to pay folks to simply exist, it is exactly what we've already been doing for nearly a century now."

I don't believe this is true for the GENERAL public. Yes, there are SOME on SSI that (IMO) may qualify as "paying folks to exist" that should NOT be and IS an abuse of the system, but who are we paying to simply exist now? (other than those on SSI that should NOT be!)

I was under the impression that welfare benefits nowadays are monitored fairly closely and that since the "era of big government is over" admin. that welfare folks actually had to qualify and even then their "benefit" was limited..............

Am I wrong?............... and if so...................where do I sign up!

No it isn't true for the general public.
Only to those lazy and sorry enough to make it a way of life.

That's what i mean when I said it is a much better system than simply rewarding the lazy and unscrupulous.

I'm not sure what you mean by "paying people to exist"/ SSI was basically paying my mom to exist for the last 10 - 12 years of her life, as that was her only source of income, but she worked her *** off up until that point )when she was 80 or so). So, yes, they were "paying her to exist' but she earned that with 50 - 60 years of hard work.

Posted by laramiebob on 2/8/2023 8:19:00 AM (view original):
I won't bite on the UBI issue. In essence I agree with Dahs. The concept of paying folks to do nothing but exist is abhorrent but the economic future as laid out by Dahs would not seem to offer many alternatives.

BUT, I will weigh on on our Social Security retirement system.
It's broken.
But an easy fix.
Why do rich folks get OUT of paying the Social Security TAX on their incomes at a certain level.
We less well off folks pay on 100% of our income, yet folks who earn MORE get to STOP paying in EVERY year once they reach a set income level.

The Social Security fund is projected to go bust because it's paying out MORE than it takes in.
Seems to be only two fixes.
1. Means test it!! That means rich folks won't get out what they (potentially) paid in. That makes it a tough sell and prolly not workable.
2. Make the wealthy pay MORE in by requiring they pay on ALL their paychecks not just the 1st half of whatever % they actually pay in.

Some folks are finished paying IN to Social Security EACH year come June or July. Meaning the pay no Social Security taxes on 50% of their yearly income. That extra money would balance the Social Security system in a heartbeat!!
The rich get WAY too many tax advantages! And in our retirement scheme, THEY got a HUGE perk! It pays to have influence within the political system!

I believe THAT should be fixed BEFORE we tackle some sort of UBI.

I believe that there is a cap/limit on how much gets taxed is due to the fact thst there is a limit on how much you can get on the other end/collect. In theory, you are getting your own money back.....in theory.

I agree they should at least raise the limit/floor/cap on the ss tax. Lifting it completely seems like a thing that would never happen. But, It would put more money into the fund. And keep the cap or adjust it (when you reach the limit/max contribution you would only get/collect 50 cents on the dollar back at a certain point.)

It's a tough sell. It's easy to say hey, you, successful rich guy, keep paying more and get less in return.

But, it would benefit the older generation, and in turn us, when we get there, to have the better-off people fund a little more, and get a little less back. Better for society as well I would imagine. Keeps/Raises the standard of living for all

But, again, thats a tough sell to the 1%'s (more like 10%'s with oasdi tax).

I agree.