5 ms·

Why do this for someone making 200k/year? I’d imagine we’d select people below a certain income level

thebean11 6y ago
Because it's much easier to just subtract the UBI at tax time from the high earners than to create an entirely new bureaucracy deciding who gets UBI.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- mytailorisrich 6y ago
  So it's not really universal and ultimately it boils down to welfare and benefits as they exist, e.g. in Europe. So what's new? Edit: for example in France there is a minimum income benefit that everyone is entitled, one might call that 'universal basic income', then: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenu_de_solidarit%C3%A9_active https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenu_de_solidarit%C3%A9_acti... The suggestion that this should be paid to everyone then clawed back from most people though taxes is rather odd. A lot of these discussions on UBI in the US seem to either be utopian or try to reinvent the wheel...
  - thebean11 6y ago
    I'm not sure how much you know about existing welfare systems in the US, but they are nothing close to getting a $6k check every month..plenty of people earning <$40k aren't eligible for them. Some people earning $0 can't even get them, and the ones that are aren't getting anywhere near a livable amount of money. People in higher tax brackets probably wouldn't immediately benefit sure, but tax bracket isn't permanent.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    Guaranteed minimum income on a regular basis.
    - mytailorisrich 6y ago
      That's welfare and benefits as they exist in Europe (at least in some countries). So when American speak of convoluted UBI systems do they in fact just mean having an European level of welfare state?
      - thebean11 6y ago
        Yes, it certainly wouldn't be "less" of a welfare state than the European countries you're referencing, that's pretty obvious. I don't think proponents of it are claiming otherwise. I'm not sure what you mean by convoluted though. To me it seems much less convoluted to the existing patchwork welfare we have in this country.
      - Ekaros 6y ago
        Welfare in many cases is hugely bureaucratic. It is there, but it means things like filling forms and sending your bank statements every 3 months to be reviewed. Not to mention the unemployment benefits you must claim first which can take weeks to process with no payments. That is if you decide to take short job. I would see it to be much simpler just to take some basic level of current benefits and last resort benefits and just giving it to everyone. And then claiming it back in some way like higher income tax.
      - benibela 6y ago
        It is far too bureaucratic In Germany I can't get welfare, because I have too many savings. After graduating from university, I also could not get unemployment benefits because I had not earned enough when working as student. Last time my work contract / research grant was about to expire, they said I would not get unemployment benefits, because I need to have a valid government id and my id card was expired. My still valid passport would not count. Although the grant was renewed, so I did not need unemployment benefits. Now the grant is expiring again, and probably won't be renewed soon, so I applied again. I forgot I need to apply 3 months before expiration, so I only did it 1 month before. Now they want a copy of my work contract (which I do not have, because I seem to have lost the contract) as well as a attestation from my employer how long I have worked there (which I also do not have. The university said they will write one, but have not yet). Not sure what is going to happen now
  - seppel 6y ago
    > So it's not really universal UBI is never universal, that is just a marketing term. Where should the money come from? To finance UBI, you first have to get the money from somewhere, and for those people, UBI means just paying higher taxes.
extrapickles 6y ago
Even if someone was making $1m/day, they still would get it. The reason behind giving it to everyone of working age is to prevent people from falling into cracks like what can happen with unemployment.
bluecalm 6y ago
Cause then it will be more profitable to make 199k than 201k. Cut-offs are just a bad idea. If you want to phase it out with income you can just deduct it from taxes. It's easier and cheaper.

Because it's much easier to just subtract the UBI at tax time from the high earners than to create an entirely new bureaucracy deciding who gets UBI.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
mytailorisrich 6y ago
So it's not really universal and ultimately it boils down to welfare and benefits as they exist, e.g. in Europe. So what's new? Edit: for example in France there is a minimum income benefit that everyone is entitled, one might call that 'universal basic income', then: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenu_de_solidarit%C3%A9_active https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenu_de_solidarit%C3%A9_acti... The suggestion that this should be paid to everyone then clawed back from most people though taxes is rather odd. A lot of these discussions on UBI in the US seem to either be utopian or try to reinvent the wheel...
- thebean11 6y ago
  I'm not sure how much you know about existing welfare systems in the US, but they are nothing close to getting a $6k check every month..plenty of people earning <$40k aren't eligible for them. Some people earning $0 can't even get them, and the ones that are aren't getting anywhere near a livable amount of money. People in higher tax brackets probably wouldn't immediately benefit sure, but tax bracket isn't permanent.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  Guaranteed minimum income on a regular basis.
  - mytailorisrich 6y ago
    That's welfare and benefits as they exist in Europe (at least in some countries). So when American speak of convoluted UBI systems do they in fact just mean having an European level of welfare state?
    - thebean11 6y ago
      Yes, it certainly wouldn't be "less" of a welfare state than the European countries you're referencing, that's pretty obvious. I don't think proponents of it are claiming otherwise. I'm not sure what you mean by convoluted though. To me it seems much less convoluted to the existing patchwork welfare we have in this country.
    - Ekaros 6y ago
      Welfare in many cases is hugely bureaucratic. It is there, but it means things like filling forms and sending your bank statements every 3 months to be reviewed. Not to mention the unemployment benefits you must claim first which can take weeks to process with no payments. That is if you decide to take short job. I would see it to be much simpler just to take some basic level of current benefits and last resort benefits and just giving it to everyone. And then claiming it back in some way like higher income tax.
    - benibela 6y ago
      It is far too bureaucratic In Germany I can't get welfare, because I have too many savings. After graduating from university, I also could not get unemployment benefits because I had not earned enough when working as student. Last time my work contract / research grant was about to expire, they said I would not get unemployment benefits, because I need to have a valid government id and my id card was expired. My still valid passport would not count. Although the grant was renewed, so I did not need unemployment benefits. Now the grant is expiring again, and probably won't be renewed soon, so I applied again. I forgot I need to apply 3 months before expiration, so I only did it 1 month before. Now they want a copy of my work contract (which I do not have, because I seem to have lost the contract) as well as a attestation from my employer how long I have worked there (which I also do not have. The university said they will write one, but have not yet). Not sure what is going to happen now
- seppel 6y ago
  > So it's not really universal UBI is never universal, that is just a marketing term. Where should the money come from? To finance UBI, you first have to get the money from somewhere, and for those people, UBI means just paying higher taxes.

extrapickles 6y ago

Even if someone was making $1m/day, they still would get it. The reason behind giving it to everyone of working age is to prevent people from falling into cracks like what can happen with unemployment.

bluecalm 6y ago

Cause then it will be more profitable to make 199k than 201k. Cut-offs are just a bad idea. If you want to phase it out with income you can just deduct it from taxes. It's easier and cheaper.