3 ms·
I’m saying they the math clearly shows there aren’t enough 500k earners who will pay the tax to pay the UBI recipients. And it frustrates me that people includ
by prepend 3y ago
I’m saying they the math clearly shows there aren’t enough 500k earners who will pay the tax to pay the UBI recipients.
And it frustrates me that people include whether people will or won’t take jobs paying $500k because of higher taxes. It’s not relevant to the discussion of “how will we fund UBI when the most basic calculations show it’s not possible.”
UBI is a good thing, but I think the way we fund it has to be realistically discussed.
- jiggawatts 3y agoI'm saying that most economies are already paying the equivalent amount to a UBI, or close to it. Most counter-arguments including yours apparently is that UBI is an entirely new tax, not a replacement for existing taxes. Sure, seen like that, it's magic money that falls from the sky. In practice, it's just a simplification of welfare.
- prepend 3y agoNo country is paying the amount proposed. If so, please provide. It should be simple by just showing entitlement amount divided by people. Countries pay substantial amounts but not to the level proposed by UBI amounts. There’s an argument for just simplifying payouts by leveling and ditching the “army of bureaucrats” and paying out the costs. But that has problems like reducing payout to people who need it and also not being anywhere near $10k or $20k per person. And these seem really obvious and glaring so are peculiar that they aren’t addressed. To make your claim show the arithmetic.