|
|
|
|
|
|
by cogman10
1030 days ago
|
|
|
The issue with Univeral income is it's easy to dismantle or not fund. Let's say we set the level at $1k per month for everyone. Great, until it's 2050 and that level is still $1k. Without inflation adjustments it eventually turns into giving people the equivalent of a penny, only now there aren't other safety nets in place. But also, you'll have politicians saying "This is a huge cost to the government and everyone should just take care of themselves. So let's cut back the spending for people born in 2023". Just like they did with SS. |
|
|
Completely the opposite. Because everyone gets it, lowering the funding requires you to fight everyone. The average income is moderately higher than median income, so the median person (i.e. the majority) receives more than they pay, even if it's funded with a flat tax. (Which also allows you to vastly simplify the tax system, because flat tax + UBI is progressive but requires much less privacy-invasive financial tracking than other forms of progressive taxation.)
> Let's say we set the level at $1k per month for everyone. Great, until it's 2050 and that level is still $1k.
So index it to inflation, or better yet, GDP per capita.
> But also, you'll have politicians saying "This is a huge cost to the government and everyone should just take care of themselves. So let's cut back the spending for people born in 2023". Just like they did with SS.
They only get away with that because the people born in 2023 wouldn't have received SS until ~2088, which doesn't concern their parents, and the infants are too young to put up any resistance.
With a UBI, everyone gets it, and then every parent will object that they're cutting funding for children.