Yes but there aren't enough people that can contribute to make it cause much sense to implement. The following is a graph distributed by Andrew Yang's campaign. (The most popular proponent of UBI)
Examine that graph and you'll clearly see you're taking $500 billion from net contributers and paying out $1.55 trillion to net beneficiaries. AND THIS IS ACCORDING TO HIS OWN CAMPAIGN. He's literally planning to pay out 3x what he's taking in.
In the fine print he admits that he has to pay for it with "future economic growth", i.e. debt. (you cant pay out cash for something now by hoping the economy grows in the future, it's physically impossible... you need debt to bridge the gap)
But explain to me how taking $1050 from the average person in order to pay $1000 to the average person grows GDP?
The simple fact of the matter is that this cannot be achieved without perhaps scrapping every other social program (Medicare, medicaid, social security) AND raising taxes in addition.
I agree this sounds a bit odd.
So we at least agree that america has a great deal of wealth. Certainly enough that if it really wanted to support its citizens with basic essentials it could. This kind of ubi is welfare or EI with no strings attached. This is a neutral statement about the health of the economy.
The policies of say Yang are not that interesting as for the most part he isnt really talking redistribution and I think he himself is ideologically opposed to it.
How I tend to think about the economy is very much like a game. If you have played say a game like "Banished" (https://store.steampowered.com/app/242920/Banished/) you can see how the economy works without the notions of money/debt/politics. Obviously it doesnt represent the real economy but it comes close to getting a taste. If you send me your Steam ID I will buy you a copy.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EQi8jWpWkAMQ_5d?format=jpg&name=...
Examine that graph and you'll clearly see you're taking $500 billion from net contributers and paying out $1.55 trillion to net beneficiaries. AND THIS IS ACCORDING TO HIS OWN CAMPAIGN. He's literally planning to pay out 3x what he's taking in.
In the fine print he admits that he has to pay for it with "future economic growth", i.e. debt. (you cant pay out cash for something now by hoping the economy grows in the future, it's physically impossible... you need debt to bridge the gap)
But explain to me how taking $1050 from the average person in order to pay $1000 to the average person grows GDP?
The simple fact of the matter is that this cannot be achieved without perhaps scrapping every other social program (Medicare, medicaid, social security) AND raising taxes in addition.