Neg - Queer UBI - Michigan 7 2023 CPSW

Queer - Neg
1NC
You can use the links from the Fiscal Crisis DA that BFHGR put out to answer the aff if the plan deficit spends There are a variety of arguments about funding and solvency throughout the 1NC. If you want to go for offense, you can go for either the Capital Flight t.urn or the Cruel Optimism turn. You could also pair this with some cap good offense that other labs have put out and be in a good place.
This file is set up to be read with a cap k---if you want to go the cap good route, then you will need to take out some of these cards and read cap good cards from other files.
1NC---Poverty
A UBI can’t improve inequality---assumes all of their empirics.
Anna Coote, 5-6-2019, Anna Coote is principal fellow at the New Economics Foundation and co-author of Universal Basic Income: A Union Perspective, "Universal basic income doesn’t work. Let’s boost the public realm instead," Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/06/universal-basic-income-public-realm-poverty-inequality, //hm-sms
A study published this week sheds doubt on ambitious claims made for universal basic income (UBI), the scheme that would give everyone regular, unconditional cash payments that are enough to live on. Its advocates claim it would help to reduce poverty, narrow inequalities and tackle the effects of automation on jobs and income. Research conducted for Public Services International, a global trade union federation, reviewed for the first time 16 practical projects that have tested different ways of distributing regular cash payments to individuals across a range of poor, middle-income and rich countries, as well as copious literature on the topic. It could find no evidence to suggest that such a scheme could be sustained for all individuals in any country in the short, medium or longer term – or that this approach could achieve lasting improvements in wellbeing or equality. The research confirms the importance of generous, non-stigmatising income support, but everything turns on how much money is paid, under what conditions and with what consequences for the welfare system as a whole. From Kenya and southern India to Alaska and Finland, cash payment schemes have been claimed to show that UBI “works”. In fact, what’s been tested in practice is almost infinitely varied, with cash paid at different levels and intervals, usually well below the poverty line and mainly to individuals selected because they are severely disadvantaged, with funds provided by charities, corporations and development agencies more often than by governments. Experiments in India and Kenya have been funded, respectively, by Unicef and Give Directly, a US charity supported by Google. They give money to people on very low incomes in selected villages for fixed periods of time. Giving small amounts of cash to people who have next to nothing is bound to make a difference – and indeed, these schemes have helped to improve recipients’ health and livelihoods. But nothing is revealed about their longer-term viability, or how they could be scaled up to serve whole populations. And there is a democratic deficit: people who get their basic income from charities or aid agencies have no control over how payments are made, to whom, at what level or over what period of time. The Alaska Permanent Fund, built from the state’s oil revenues, pays all adults and children a dividend each year – in 2018, it was $1,600 (£1,230). The scheme is popular and enduring; it has been found to produce some positive impacts on rural indigenous groups, but it makes no claim to sufficiency and has done nothing to reduce child poverty or to prevent widening income inequalities. Finland undertook a two-year trial, from January 2017 to December 2018, of modest monthly payments of €560 (£477) to 2,000 unemployed people – but the government has refused to fund further expansion. It told us little about UBI except that, when push comes to shove, elected politicians may balk at paying for a universal scheme. The cost of a sufficient UBI scheme would be extremely high according to the International Labour Office, which estimates average costs equivalent to 20-30% of GDP in most countries. Costs can be reduced – and have been in most trials – by paying smaller amounts to fewer individuals. But there is no evidence to suggest that a partial or conditional UBI scheme could do anything to mitigate, let alone reverse, current trends towards worsening poverty, inequality and labour insecurity. Costs may be offset by raising taxes or shifting expenditure from other kinds of public expenditure, but either way there are huge and risky trade-offs. Money spent on cash payments cannot be invested elsewhere. The more generous the payments, the wider the range of recipients, the longer the scheme continues, the less money will be left to build the structures and systems that are needed to realise UBI’s progressive goals. As this week’s report observes, “If cash payments are allowed to take precedence, there’s a serious risk of crowding out efforts to build collaborative, sustainable services and infrastructure – and setting a pattern for future development that promotes commodification rather than emancipation.” This may help to explain why UBI has attracted support from Silicon Valley tycoons, who are more interested in defending consumer capitalism than in tackling poverty and inequality. The report concludes that the money needed to pay for an adequate UBI scheme “would be better spent on reforming social protection systems, and building more and better-quality public services”. Redistributing the personal tax allowance and developing the idea of universal basic services (UBS) could offer a more promising alternative. This calls for more and better quality public services that are free to those who need them, regardless of ability to pay. Healthcare and education are obvious examples, and it is argued that a similar approach should be applied to areas such as transport, housing, social care and information – everyday essentials that should be available to all. Collective provision offers more cost-effective, socially just, redistributive and sustainable ways of meeting people’s needs than leaving individuals to buy what they can afford in the marketplace.
They can’t fund it:
At best, a wealth tax would generate $2.4 trillion over 10 years.
John Ricco and Jon Huntley, 3-18-2021, John Ricco is the Director of Tax and Budget Analysis and a public finance expert specializing in tax policy and microsimulation modeling, "Budgetary and Economic Effects of Senator Elizabeth Warren’s Wealth Tax Legislation — Penn Wharton Budget Model," Penn Wharton Budget Model, https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2021/3/15/budgetary-effects-of-senator-warren-wealth-tax, //hm-sms
PWBM projects that the Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act of 2021, introduced by Senator Elizabeth Warren, would raise $2.1 trillion over the standard 10-year budget window (2022-2031) under scoring conventions used by government agencies. Incorporating the effects of enhanced IRS enforcement, our projection rises to $2.4 trillion over 2022-2031 and $2.7 trillion over 2023-2032. Also incorporating macroeconomic effects of the Act reduces estimated revenue to $2.0 trillion over 2022-2031 and $2.3 trillion over 2023-2032. We estimate that the Act would reduce GDP by 1.2 percent in 2050.
A UBI would cost more than $3.6 trillion per year---they can’t fund it.
Kimberly Amadeo, 8-7-2022, "What Is Universal Basic Income?," Balance, https://www.thebalancemoney.com/universal-basic-income-4160668, //hm-sms
How Much Would Universal Basic Income Cost? In July 2022, there were 164 million Americans in the labor force.7 FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. "Civilian Labor Force Level." A GBI of $12,000 per year ($1,000 per month) for each person in the labor force would cost $1.968 trillion per year. Many supporters argue that UBI would not need to be an addition to current welfare spending; a basic income would allow the government to cut redundant programs and reduce associated bureaucratic costs. A UBI would cost even more—with more than 300 million Americans, $12,000 per year would cost more than $3.6 trillion per year.
A UBI would shrink the economy and worsen benefits for the most needy.
Rachel Minogue, 5-24-2018, Economic Fellow 2017-2018, "Five Problems with Universal Basic Income," Third Way, https://www.thirdway.org/memo/five-problems-with-universal-basic-income, //hm-sms
The idea of a Universal Basic Income (UBI) is gaining more attention. With a UBI, the government would give every adult the same fixed, monthly payment regardless of work status, health, or wealth. There are serious reasons to be cautious about UBI: It is offered as a solution to technological unemployment, but jobs aren’t disappearing; rather, work is changing. A quarter century after the digital revolution began, the economy now employs 37 million more people and offers a record-high 6 million job openings. Viewed by some as an alternative to work, UBI would shrink the labor force. By definition, a smaller labor force would mean lower economic output and lower tax revenues to invest in the future. UBI is very expensive. A $12,000-per-year UBI would cost the government $2.4 trillion annually, or one-eighth of GDP. That’s nearly as large as the entire US safety net today. Because UBI is universal, it would divert assistance from the most needy. Even under a leading proposal that leaves most of the safety net intact, a single parent with three children could lose up to $19,000 in annual benefits on net. The idea has been scarcely tested. Only one of a handful of experiments with UBI would provide insights relevant to the US economy, but that study is still in its early stages. While the motivation behind UBI is admirable, it is not the right solution to the country’s core economic problem: the concentration of opportunity.
A UBI cannot be funded by taxation and if it was, would eliminate all current welfare programs, worsening inequality.
Robert Greenstein, 6-13-2019, Greenstein is the founder and President Emeritus of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "Commentary: Universal Basic Income May Sound Attractive But, If It Occurred, Would Likelier Increase Poverty Than Reduce It," Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-opportunity/commentary-universal-basic-income-may-sound-attractive-but-if-it, //hm-sms
The Cost There are over 300 million Americans today. Suppose UBI provided everyone with $10,000 a year. That would cost more than $3 trillion a year — and $30 trillion to $40 trillion over ten years. This single-year figure equals more than three-fourths of the entire yearly federal budget — and double the entire budget outside Social Security, Medicare, defense, and interest payments. It’s also equal to close to 100 percent of all tax revenue the federal government collects. Or, consider UBI that gives everyone $5,000 a year. That would provide income equal to about two-fifths of the poverty line for an individual (which is a projected $12,700 in 2016) and less than the poverty line for a family of four ($24,800). But it would cost as much as the entire federal budget outside Social Security, Medicare, defense, and interest payments. Some UBI proponents respond that policymakers could make the UBI payments taxable. But the savings from doing so would be relatively modest, because the vast bulk of Americans either owe no federal income tax or are in the 10% or 15% tax brackets. For example, if you gave all 328 million Americans a $10,000 UBI and the cost was $3.28 trillion a year (about $33 trillion over ten years) before taxes, then making the UBI payments taxable would reduce that cost only to something like $2.5 trillion or $2.75 trillion (or $25 trillion to $27.5 trillion over ten years). Paying For It Where would the money to finance such a large expenditure come from? That it would come mainly or entirely from new taxes isn’t plausible. We’ll already need substantial new revenues in the coming decades to help keep Social Security and Medicare solvent and avoid large benefit cuts in them. We’ll need further tax increases to help repair a crumbling infrastructure that will otherwise impede economic growth. And if we want to create more opportunity and reduce racial and other barriers and inequities, we’ll also need to raise new revenues to invest more in areas like pre-school education, child care, college affordability, and revitalizing segregated inner-city communities. A UBI that’s financed primarily by tax increases would require the American people to accept a level of taxation that vastly exceeds anything in U.S. history. It’s hard to imagine that such a UBI would advance very far, especially given the tax increases we’ll already need for Social Security, Medicare, infrastructure, and other needs. The Risk UBI’s daunting financing challenges raise fundamental questions about its political feasibility, both now and in coming decades. Proponents often speak of an emerging left-right coalition to support it. But consider what UBI’s supporters on the right advocate. They generally propose UBI as a replacement for the current “welfare state.” That is, they would finance UBI by eliminating all or most programs for people with low or modest incomes. Consider what that would mean. If you take the dollars targeted on people in the bottom fifth or two-fifths of the population and convert them to universal payments to people all the way up the income scale, you’re redistributing income upward. That would increase poverty and inequality rather than reduce them. Yet that’s the platform on which the (limited) support for UBI on the right largely rests. It entails abolishing programs from SNAP (food stamps) — which largely eliminated the severe child malnutrition found in parts of the Southern “black belt” and Appalachia in the late 1960s — to the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), Section 8 rental vouchers, Medicaid, Head Start, child care assistance, and many others. These programs lift tens of millions of people, including millions of children, out of poverty each year and make tens of millions more less poor. Some UBI proponents may argue that by ending current programs, we’d reap large administrative savings that we could convert into UBI payments. But that’s mistaken. For the major means-tested programs — SNAP, Medicaid, the EITC, housing vouchers, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and school meals — administrative costs consume only 1 to 9 percent of program resources, as a CBPP analysis explains.[1] Their funding goes overwhelmingly to boost the incomes and purchasing power of low-income families. Moreover, as the Roosevelt Institute’s Mike Konczal has noted, eliminating Medicaid, SNAP, the EITC, housing vouchers, and the like would still leave you far short of what’s needed to finance a meaningful UBI.[2] Would we also end Pell Grants that help low-income students afford college? Would we terminate support for children in foster care, for mental health services, and for job training? Ed Dolan, who favors UBI, has calculated that we could finance it by using the proceeds from eliminating all means-tested programs outside health care — including Pell Grants, job training, Head Start, free school lunches, and the like, as well as refundable tax credits, SNAP, SSI, low-income housing programs, etc. The result, Dolan found, would be an annual UBI of $1,582 per person, well below the level of support most low-income families (especially working-poor families with children) now receive. The increase in poverty and hardship would be very large.[3] That’s why the risk is high that under any UBI that could conceivably gain traction politically, tens of millions of poor people would likely end up worse off. To further understand the risks, consider how working-age adults who aren’t working would fare. In our political culture, there are formidable political obstacles to providing cash to working-age people who aren’t employed, and it’s unlikely that UBI could surmount them. The nation’s social insurance programs — Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance — all go only to people with significant work records. It’s highly unlikely that policymakers would agree to make UBI cash payments of several thousand dollars to people who aren’t elderly or disabled and aren’t working. (By contrast, there is political support for providing poor families that have no earnings with non-cash assistance such as SNAP, Medicaid, rental vouchers, Head Start, and the WIC nutrition program.)
1NC---Work
a) A wealth-tax funded UBI causes capital flight and actually costs money---France’s wealth tax proves
Molly Moore, 7-16-2006, Molly Moore was a foreign reporter for the Washington Post for 27 years, serving as bureau chief in Paris, "Old Money, New Money Flee France and Its Wealth Tax," Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2006/07/16/old-money-new-money-flee-france-and-its-wealth-tax/49ac2ec7-c1b2-423e-a89b-699750275cd4/, //hm-sms
PARIS -- Denis Payre, a self-described French jet-setter, built a successful high-tech company from scratch, then decided to quit at age 34 to spend more time in France with his wife and young children. Instead, Payre said, he a tax bill was pushed into exile by the French government, which sent him of nearly $2.5 million on paper assets he couldn't cash in. "They were asking me to pay taxes on money I didn't have," Payre said. "I had no choice but to leave the country." Payre, who moved his family to neighboring Belgium eight years ago, is today part of a sizable community of rich expatriate French driven out by the world's highest tax bills on wealthy citizens. The exodus continues: On average, at least one millionaire leaves France every day to take up residence in more wealth-friendly nations, according to a government study. At a time when France is struggling to stay competitive in an increasingly integrated world, business leaders say the country can't afford to make refugees of some of its most established business families. They include members of the Taittinger champagne empire, the Peugeot auto magnates and leading shareholders of dominant retailers Carrefour and Darty. Also going are members of a new generation of high-tech entrepreneurs. Socialist leaders and some government officials argue that the rich are merely trying to shirk their social responsibilities by fleeing the country with their millions. "France is penalizing success in a big way," argued Payre, who is now 43 and has started a new company in Brussels that he said did nearly $32 million in business this year. "The loss in income for the government is the smallest part. The big issue is the loss of all that creative energy this country is dying for." Payre said that when he decided to leave his high-tech company, Business Objects, in 1997, he owned shares that were worth $110 million -- on paper. French tax authorities required Payre to pay a wealth tax of 2.2 percent on the shares, based on what the shares would have been worth had he sold them at the market's highest point. But Payre said that he didn't have access to them because of stock market regulations that limited his ability to sell and that, in any case, a market dip had devalued the shares below that peak. The wealth tax -- officially called the solidarity tax -- is collected on top of income, capital gains, inheritance and social security taxes. It's part of the reason France consistently ranks at the top of Forbes magazine's annual Tax Misery Index -- a global listing of the most heavily taxed nations. Wealthy citizens' tax bills can be higher than their incomes, according to tax analysts. President Jacques Chirac's government attempted to rectify that disparity last year with changes intended to guarantee that no one would pay more than 60 percent of

Preview shortened. Download the file for the full document.