3 ms·
The more serious proposals I’ve heard are for revenue neutral ubi. Which means taking the money from current entitlements and giving it evenly to everyone. I’d
by DataWorker 8y ago
The more serious proposals I’ve heard are for revenue neutral ubi. Which means taking the money from current entitlements and giving it evenly to everyone. I’d love to hear a real economist who supports the idea and is in favor of paying for ubi by raising taxes on the wealthy. I do not know of any economists that fit that description.
- azernik 8y agoOn the contrary. Most of the "revenue neutral" claims I've heard are Americans making a politically-motivated claim to reduce libertarian/conservative opposition. Actual concrete proposals always require taxation - see e.g. the Swiss proposal (voted down in a referendum because of the taxation requirements) and this [1] overview in the Economist of the prospects of adoption in other countries. Generally, if I see a claim that a proposal for UBI is revenue neutral, I assume they're either a) left-wing Americans trying to sneak welfare hikes by right-wing Americans, or b) right-wing Americans trying to sneak a drop in net income transfer to the poor past left-wing Americans. [1] https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2016/06/economist-explains-4 https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2016/06/e...