4 ms·
They should have also collected monthly a total of $62500 extra “taxes” from all these people — the higher the income, the bigger the tax share.
by nlitened 6y ago
They should have also collected monthly a total of $62500 extra “taxes” from all these people — the higher the income, the bigger the tax share.
- notahacker 6y agotbf since their targeting was low income neighbourhoods, one can assume the higher income neighbourhoods would have contributed some of the share. A fair experiment would have at least stripped away all the other state funded benefits UBI supposedly replaces, but I guess 'UBI is good for the spending power of single-income couples but leaves the poorest people much worse off' wasn't the headline the advocacy group was shooting for...
- moduspol 6y agoWhy $62500? The participants should be voting on how much to take from those among them with the higher incomes. I mean--unless we're assessing how UBI might work in a country without democracy.
- AdrianB1 6y agoDemocracy is not a free pas to vote anything, especially if it is negatively impact some people, otherwise you justify gang rapes as a majority decision.
- moduspol 6y agoSure, but it's tough to imagine in today's climate that a majority of voters living only on UBI would vote to maintain or lower the amount of money given directly to them from the top X%. We already have the issue today but it's not quite so direct.
- AdrianB1 6y agoThis is a huge problem with UBI. Maybe people will have to make a choice, either live on UBI or vote, but not both - it is immoral to vote for your own benefits.