You get it back as tax from the non-poor so you don't actually spend the money. Though if they have a bad year or decide to start a business, or write a novel they are assured that I'll be there for them.
AngrySkillzz proposed funding BI by eliminating other programs (including Social Security). You're saying we don't eliminate those programs and instead fund BI by raising taxes?
I'm sure you can find a basic introduction to the idea you're arguing against somewhere on the web but basically, instead of giving money to the poor and needy, you give it to everyone and those that earn a little give some of it back in tax, at some point you earn enough to give it all back. Those in the latter group cost you nothing, even though you've "given" them x thousand dollars, so dividing (or multiplying) a dollar figure by population isn't accurate.
OK ya, what you're arguing for and what most of the other folks around here are arguing for isn't the same thing.
It's a little messy but we already pretty much have what you're talking about with a patchwork of unemployment benefits, welfare, medicaid and various forms of disability insurance.
Means-testing is a wash on average, though: you keep the taxes of higher-income people lower, but then don't give them the cash payment. This works out better for very wealthy people (since tax rates are typically percentage-based, while the payout is a fixed number), but worse for lower-middle-class people, who get means-tested out of the payout but don't make enough to get much tax savings. There's some cross-over point where it's exactly a wash. Under the basic income system the idea is not to means-test it, because means-testing disincentivizes working (you lose your benefit once you make "too much" in other income), and instead just net it out with tax rates above a certain level. So at the crossover point you get a $10k BI but you pay $10k more taxes; below that you come out ahead, and above that you're behind. The current welfare system has the same general properties, but is much more bureaucratic and has more of a "cliff" where you lose the benefit, instead of it just slowly being eaten away by marginal tax rates.
OK sure, but if you're going to that, and not eliminate (or reduce) any current gov't programs then you have to raise taxes. If you want't to give, say 10k to each american that's 3.1 Trillion dollars which is more than the US gov't raised in taxes last year.
Well, yeah, you'd raise taxes, to the point where it nets out on average. You raise everyone's taxes by $10k on average, and give everyone $10k. At the average income it's a wash. At the low end people were already getting welfare and not paying much in taxes, so it's a wash for them too. At the lower-middle-class to middle-class level it reduces the disincentive to work and makes people better off. The only people who really lose out are at the very top, people who make so much money that any percentage-based increase would swamp the fixed gains (which is why, I would guess, they oppose it).
