3 ms·

Right, I'm not saying that everyone pays themselves $100/mo; clearly that's not going to do a thing. I'm saying that I think the same set of people who receive

Right, I'm not saying that everyone pays themselves $100/mo; clearly that's not going to do a thing. I'm saying that I think the same set of people who receive the money should be taxed to pay for it. The thing of UBI is that it will be paid by your average person who isn't wealthy, it will be paid by the upper middle class. Your example of people volunteering for a study that costs them money is exactly the problem that I am describing, and for a system such as this to work, that's how it would end up--taxes go up for people who this doesn't benefit, and as much fun as it is to assume that "other rich people" will pay for it, it doesn't work that way. That's why I think a better test is to select a group of people to self-fund their own UBI -- some people pay $140 and receive $100. Others pay $20 and receive $100.

AnthonyMouse 10y ago
> The thing of UBI is that it will be paid by your average person who isn't wealthy, it will be paid by the upper middle class. That's generally how all taxes work. The people with more money than average pay more than average and the people with less money than average pay less than average. But the people who make $1 more than average are only suffering a net loss of $.20, whereas the people who make $100,000 more than average are paying net $20,000. > That's why I think a better test is to select a group of people to self-fund their own UBI -- some people pay $140 and receive $100. Others pay $20 and receive $100. In other words what you think we should do is to actually make it a law somewhere?