Denver experimented with giving people $1,000 a month. It reduced homelessness and increased full-time employment, a study found.

Rich people. Increase taxes a tiny bit on the 1% and this will be paid for, and then some.

Who cares? Did you not see how it was cheaper than what we're currently doing because fewer people wind up in hospitals and prisons?

Where does the more money we are currently spending come from?

They just print it. There's nothing tying the value of the currency to what it's worth in terms of purchase power except how much is circulated.

My issue with UBI, at large-scale, is that it will cause inflation that will 100% go to the wealthiest people on the planet. For example, it's not that the cost of a burger would need to go from $10->$15 because companies now need to compete in wages in an environment where their employees have an extra $12k, it's that the cost of a burger will go from $10->$15 because the rich want the extra $5, leaving people receiving UBI with the same (or less) purchasing power.

EDIT: To be clear, I'm excited about the possibilities that these studies show, and I'm not against UBI. I just am getting older and coming to the conclusion that the non-wealthy get fucked every time anything that is meant to help us is implemented.

Some of these programs end up saving the governments money, due to reducing other costs like policing, shelters, and maybe also increased tax revenue due to these people improving their employment situations, thus paying taxes.

It may be the case that a less targeted program, ie an actual broad-based UBI, would have an actual cost associated with it. There are a lot of benefits to reducing poverty that reduce the drag on other government support systems, though.

Would you ask that if it came to the defense budget?

I would rather the government spent its money on directly helping citizens rather than only giving it to the military industrial complex.

Closing yeah loopholes and making the rich pay their share, churches, decreasing military spending by a fraction etc...

Part of it comes from removing existing social support schemes that UBI supplants. Not only can you reallocate those funds, the simplified ruleset should also reduce bureaucratic overhead, which can also go towards funding UBI.

Will that cover all of the additional expenses? Probably not. But it's a start, at least.

Ideally you use it to reduce/depreciate services that are more expensive counter parts to what UBI provides. Ideally a reduction in homeless shelters, food banks, police services, emergency hospital ect

It could come from rich people or it could come from cutting back on the services that go hand in hand with homelessness. Shelters, policing, less crime, etc

Where would it go?

Partially this is a Cotton Eye Joe reference, but mostly pointing out that people spend money. Spent money is taxed. Huuzah.

Also money isn't real. You can just print the stuff.
The only issue is the productive capacity of the society doing it.

Rolling back trump’s $2 Trillion tax cuts for the rich and corporations would be a great start. From there, increase taxes on both groups substantially. They will still be rich and still be making record profits, but we will gain social safety nets such as UBI in the process.

Alternatively, we could generate funding for this the same way we did to fund over 20 years of military occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. It could come from the same place we get the funds for subsidizing fossil fuel companies. It could even come from the very same money printers we used to give free PPP loans to “businesses” during the height of the pandemic.

The point being, if it’s good policy, a healthy functioning government does it, and doesn’t waste time asking questions about how we pay for things. Taxes. The answer is always taxes, it’s literally called the Internal Revenue Service.

Weed/drugs in general.