3 ms·
It's not supposed to be $1000 to each and everyone just like that. That's be too much for pretty much any government. But imagine that you give $1000 to a perso
by hvidgaard 5y ago
It's not supposed to be $1000 to each and everyone just like that. That's be too much for pretty much any government. But imagine that you give $1000 to a person without a job. Then said person gets a job and for every $1 they earn, you subtract $0.5 (or any other fraction that makes sense) from the UBI. When that person earns $2000 they do not get any more UBI. The majority of people with a job is not going to get any UBI, but they have that security should they lose their job. It will also be targeted at the people who earn the least amount of money.
- slavik81 5y agoThis is the definition of UBI (from Wikipedia): > Universal basic income (UBI), also called unconditional basic income [...] is a sociopolitical financial transfer concept in which all citizens of a given population regularly receive a legally stipulated and equal financial grant paid by the government without a means test. Adding a means test to ensure that only some people receive the income would make it non-universal. You're describing a classic unemployment welfare system, but proponents of UBI argue that a universal income is simpler to administer and creates fewer perverse incentives.
- balfirevic 5y agoPeople would still pay taxes on income. If the taxes you pay are larger than the UBI amount then you effectively don't receive it any more, even if it's accounted in the way that you receive $1000 UBI and then pay $1000 (or $2000 or $5000) in taxes.