4 ms·

What's cynical about it? I guess I must not understand what UBI is all about. I had thought it WASN'T a form of welfare. Rather, it's UNIVERSAL in nature. T

What's cynical about it? I guess I must not understand what UBI is all about. I had thought it WASN'T a form of welfare. Rather, it's UNIVERSAL in nature. That would mean theoretically everyone from millionaires, to the poorest, would receive UBI funds. I'd love to be free from having to earn an income, so that I can work on my own projects (businesses). But who wouldn't, right?

jon_richards 10y ago
One interpretation of UBI is reverse taxation, where you start off with a negative tax obligation instead of 0, and positive tax obligations are added on top of that, usually resulting in a positive balance. In that situation, is someone with a positive tax obligation really receiving UBI funds? What about if all taxes are raised slightly so that the majority of people's tax obligations remain unchanged? It all gets very pedantic, but it is generally considered both welfare and universal. It can get even more pedantic in other interpretations, especially when it isn't the government providing the income.
- marmot777 10y ago
  Yes, the "negative income tax" seems to be a mechanism by which to implement UBI. This idea has had champions on the left and right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax
marmot777 10y ago
I tried to right my mistake of saying it was cynical by apologizing above. It's not cynical. As far as free from having to earn an income, of course, you realize we're talking about a floor? Someone could correct me on this but my understanding is "basic income" means enough to survive? Some people would accept living very simply so they could work on their personal projects, build their business, etc., while others would make seeking additional income their highest priority. That's what I like about this concept is that there does not appear to be coercion or social engineering involved.

jon_richards 10y ago

One interpretation of UBI is reverse taxation, where you start off with a negative tax obligation instead of 0, and positive tax obligations are added on top of that, usually resulting in a positive balance. In that situation, is someone with a positive tax obligation really receiving UBI funds? What about if all taxes are raised slightly so that the majority of people's tax obligations remain unchanged? It all gets very pedantic, but it is generally considered both welfare and universal. It can get even more pedantic in other interpretations, especially when it isn't the government providing the income.

marmot777 10y ago
Yes, the "negative income tax" seems to be a mechanism by which to implement UBI. This idea has had champions on the left and right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax

marmot777 10y ago

I tried to right my mistake of saying it was cynical by apologizing above. It's not cynical. As far as free from having to earn an income, of course, you realize we're talking about a floor? Someone could correct me on this but my understanding is "basic income" means enough to survive? Some people would accept living very simply so they could work on their personal projects, build their business, etc., while others would make seeking additional income their highest priority. That's what I like about this concept is that there does not appear to be coercion or social engineering involved.