Poverty costs the state as truckload, the cheapest way to solve poverty is by simply giving poor people money, other interventions have been proven to be ineffectual.
The total, broadly construed cost of every US anti-poverty program is less than one-third of the $3tn mentioned above. You only even get that if you include Medicaid.
No, you misunderstand. That's how much we're spending to decrease worst symptoms of poverty to a manageable level. The actual opportunity cost, in terms of wasted human potential is far greater, unless you believe that current US anti-poverty programs are doing a great job.
(Also the ways its done now has its own share of terrible value destroying externalities, ie: the welfare cliff)
Evidently that is insufficient. Also, more important than just poverty is insecurity. Not being secure in one’s ability to provide for themselves and their family, for example because of volatility in employment markets, causes all sorts of side effects.
I have quite a few acquaintances who simply didn’t get into relationships or have children because they are not sure of their ability to provide the minimum level of care they think they should.
But the figure is, frankly, a silly one. That would be the cost assuming no income tax changes at all. You can shift the tax thresholds and rates to make it a net 0 change for everyone earning over some figure.
I see that as the basic problem in this discussion.
Proponents of UBI say "everyone will receive $X per month". When people ask "how will this be paid for?", the answer is always "changes to tax schedules, savings on social programs", but this tells us nothing without details.
