[AreaGuy]

$12k per year x 320M people = $3.84 trillion, which is 22.9% of annual GDP.

That's a pretty steep price tag for a thousand dollars a month.

[vlasev]

Please take a look at the FAQ[1] on reddit and perhaps at this article[2] about calculating whether USA can afford BI.

[1]: http://en.reddit.com/r/basicincome/wiki/index

[2]: http://www.economonitor.com/dolanecon/2014/01/13/could-we-af...

[hypersoar]

First of all, you're only going to pay the adults. That eliminates about a quarter of the population. Second of all, you're still going to collect taxes, so many people will just have the income taxed back. Say, only people below median income end up keeping the money. This cuts the figure down to 1.44 trillion. This is still a lot (we currently spend about $850 billion on social security, which would presumably be replaced by basic income), but it's not unmanageable.

[conanbatt]

Depends on how that income gets taxed. At a certain level of income, the gains of basic income are lost to extra taxation. However you always know that if you get fired you have a safety net, so it provides value to you even if you get 0$ net effect.

[IanCal]

That is a rather trivial analysis that assumes a system where everyone, regardless of income, got $12k more than they would otherwise.

It would be easy to set a tax system such that people got $12k as a minimum, but those who earned (say) $20k received $6k and by $50k there was no increase. I'm not suggesting a curve with those figures, that is purely for an example.

[rmc]

A lot of that money will be spent, going back into the economy.

[hurin]

If you'd actually bothered to read the article you'd see that in the pilot project productivity went up.

Unemployment dropped as well, from 60% to 45%, and there was a 29% increase in average earned income, excluding the basic income grant.

Also from the wiki link posted by OP:

As published in a recent report, "All those dollars low-wage workers spend create an economic ripple effec. Every extra dollar going into the pockets of low-wage workers, standard economic multiplier models tell us, adds about $1.21 to the national economy. Every extra dollar going into the pockets of a high-income American, by contrast, only adds about 39 cents to the GDP."

There could be statistics that support the argument that you are making as well but I don't think that:

> "I'd have to imagine..."

without any references to support your statement contribute anything meaningful to the discussion.

[akhatri_aus]

I see all the arguments for it, but I always find this to be the argument against it which I believe would be the issue myself.

If one had basic income why would they need to work? The incentives favour against the need to work. That income could be saved up and used in countries where the PPP value is much higher. Or just live and not work (which would decrease tax revenues forth).

If people started to work less the basic income scheme would not have a source from tax and it spirals down GDP.

I keep bringing this up, but no one here likes to give a decent explanation as to why this will not be the case.

[IanCal]

I don't think we can claim that distributing money amongst people would definitely decrease spending on goods and services.