Eduardo Porter writes in a New York Times column this morning that “a universal basic income will not solve poverty” — a claim that strikes me as mostly right but mostly beside the point. True, if the United States implements a universal basic income (UBI) without significantly increasing taxes, we won’t solve the problem of poverty entirely. But a UBI could lift millions (quite likely tens of millions) of Americans out of poverty — while improving the lives of those who remain below the poverty line and millions more just above it.

Let’s start with a back-of-the-envelope calculation. How large a UBI could the United States afford without raising marginal tax rates? The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the federal government already spends $220 billion on income security programs (not including tax credits). That figure includes spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (“Food Stamps”), Supplemental Security Income, unemployment compensation, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and a few smaller programs. Meanwhile, the Joint Committee on Taxation pegs the cost of the earned income tax credit at $73 billion and the cost of the child tax credit at $56 billion. Assuming that all those programs would be replaced by a UBI, we’re now at $349 billion.

What if other tax expenditures are also eliminated to pay for a UBI? That sweetens the pot considerably: $180 billion from eliminating the exclusion of employer contributions for health care and the exclusion of benefits under cafeteria plans, $100 billion from eliminating the deduction for state and local non-business taxes, $77 billion from nixing the mortgage interest deduction, $33 billion from ending stepped-up basis treatment of capital gains at death, and $29 billion from eliminating the exclusion of capital gains on home sales. Now we’re up to $768 billion — and that’s without touching the charitable contribution deduction and retirement-related tax preferences.

Read more at Whatever Source Derived