Bill Gates has been a supporter of a universal basic income (UBI) for decades, and recently introduced a $1.6 trillion, 15-year stimulus plan that would fund the program through 2027.
But the program has been stalled in Congress, thanks to the party’s divide on immigration.
Now, a new study by the Center for American Progress has found that Gates’ proposal to boost UBIs would have no effect on reducing the number of immigrants in the country.
The report finds that even if UBI is expanded to include more immigrants, immigrants are likely to continue to be a big part of the U.S. economy.
The report found that the bill Gates is proposing would not reduce the number, percentage, or percentage growth of immigration.
Instead, it would boost the number and percentage growth in UBI recipients.
“The bill would increase the share of UBI income going to the top 1 percent by an average of 1.5 percentage points a year,” the report said.
As a result, “the bill would have little impact on the share, percentage and percentage size of U.N. children and young adults who are U.s. citizens or legal permanent residents, or on the U,S.
The report concluded that, as a whole, immigrants make up “about half” of the population and the UBI could only make a “small impact on their share of the economy” if its benefits are “substantially offset” by the “negative economic consequences of immigration.”
It added: “Even if the UB [universal basic income] is expanded, it may be difficult to reach the goal of full employment if more immigrants are employed.”
The Brookings Institution, a think tank, is one of the more progressive groups pushing for a UBI.
“Universal basic income would be a step toward creating a nation that is truly inclusive of all Americans,” the think tank said in a statement.
“We cannot afford to see an economy where immigrants are forced to pay into our social safety net while working to support families, providing jobs, and paying taxes.”
The U.K. also has a program called UBI, or Universal Basic Income, that aims to reduce the dependency on welfare.
Despite the debate, Gates told NBC News that he doesn’t think the program is necessary.
He said that the idea behind UBI was that people would not be able to afford to support a family of three.
“It is not a means test, and I don’t think it is,” Gates said.
“The point of the program isn’t to pay for things like health care.
I don, the point is to help people.
We should help people.”
While the UBS study is critical of Gates’ UBI proposal, it is worth noting that other research shows that UBI would have a greater impact on improving the lives of people in the U.-20 generation than Gates’ plan.
A recent report by researchers at Princeton and Stanford found that “a UBI program with universal eligibility, including for U.B.I. beneficiaries, would increase total employment by 10 million and reduce unemployment by 0.7 percent.
But this study also looked at how many jobs would be created and how long it would take to see the results.
The authors found that there would be “substantial additional labor market and wage activity” if the benefits were extended to the next generation.
Even with the increased work, a UBS analysis found that it would cost the U-20 generation $16.6 billion a year.
The UBS report also said that, while Gates’ proposed UBI “may be economically viable,” the government should not extend it “for longer than necessary.”
It also said the bill would “likely have little or no impact on immigration.”