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.
Democracy 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.
Sure, 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.
This 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.
tbf 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...
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.