It's really unclear why you argue paying for UBI with taxes is monumentally stupid and then go on to state it'd be funded by "high end taxes", clarifying that y

It's really unclear why you argue paying for UBI with taxes is monumentally stupid and then go on to state it'd be funded by "high end taxes", clarifying that your preferred type of tax rise is equalising capital gains and income tax (i.e. a tax rise that'd affect huge numbers of people). That's exactly the point: it would be funded by tax rises. The fantasy that it can all be funded by just taxing a few people so that won't matter is risible: many countries (like the UK) already have problems with a tax base that's too narrow, yielding huge unpredictable swings in government income as a small number of rich people either move around or suffer changes in fortunes. The costs of UBI would be staggering, the idea that just a few rich people can be made to shoulder the burden is the same cop-out all socialist schemes always use. It doesn't work, there's a limited amount of blood squeezable from the stone. People leave or find ways to avoid the taxes. People are more than happy to put additional effort into increasing labor income when already working considerably And many other people don't give a crap and would happily live off of the level of income they get from benefits, if there weren't an enforcement bureaucracy prodding them to search for a job. If you're trying to solve the problem of unintelligently set welfare thresholds, I have two questions for you: 1. Why not make that the issue you campaign on? Many people can get behind more intelligent formulas for withdrawing welfare, that's a bipartisan issue. UBI is not the easiest way to fix this. 2. Why do you think the current form of governments, that have totally failed to configure the current welfare system correctly, would set the variables in a UBI system better? (2) is a huge one. UBI posits a single level of income that's right for everyone, but living costs vary wildly even across jurisdictions. The "universal" aspect of UBI would last about five minutes in the face of Marxist lobbying. Before you know it people with some kinds of lifestyles would be receiving more than others. Otherwise nobody in San Francisco or New York is gonna be living off it, right? Even if you can stretch the definition of the latter so that's a sensible statement, its certainly less central planning than traditional means- and behaviorally-tested social welfare systems by any sane standard Behavioural means testing is a tiny part of the administration of contemporary welfare systems, which are in any case dominated by pension provision (i.e. not behaviourally means tested). The vast majority of the central planning derives from: 1. How much do people get? 2. Who is forced to pay for it? The mechanics of distribution are optimisable like any system of bureaucracy but not at all the primary or most important thing.