>Taxes, some of which will hopefully be paid by these people, reduced benefits from other programs, and reduced administration in running the program.
This tired argument again?
1. These people are getting barely enough money to live on in the first place. They will not be paying taxes.
One of the reasons they don't work is working means they lose benefits. But they don't lose the UBI by working, therefore more will enter the labour force (to get extra money) and pay more taxes.
2. Just _reduced_ benefits? What happened to eliminating those altogether? Reducing won't eliminate overhead.
I don't know all the details of this implementation. But I'd assume that some would be eliminated entirely and others remain, overall a reduction in benefits paid and administration.
3. Reduced administration will not pay for the difference. Shall we do some math?
No it will not. The bulk will come from taxes. The reduced administration just makes things more efficient.
Apparently minimum cost of living is something like $15000/year in the US, so let's set UB to that level. There are 308 million people living in the US. Simple multiplication tells us we need $4.6 trillion/year to pay for UBI.
The total US federal income for 2016 was $3.3 trillion.
Remember coupled with that massive tax hike is a massive rebate in the form of the UBI.
When it all balances out it's not that different from making the tax code more progressive and giving everyone who's unemployed EI benefits. The fact these people are surviving right now suggests we're giving the necessary resources to live, the UBI just changes how we direct those resources.
And if the UBI does bring more people back into the labour force you make the country wealthier.