[Ajay-p]

But that is derived from profits from the sale of Alaskan oil. It is not a wealth redistribution program, increased taxes, or reductions in spending elsewhere. Alaska is also a very costly place to live. It's also the only state that actually sells something and makes a profit which it can redistribute to its citizens. Maybe if America as a whole profited from the sale of its natural resources then it could, in theory, redistribute that and call it a UBI. Either way, to implement a UBI the money has to come from somewhere which at this moment means it has to be taken from someone/something else.

[DFHippie]

The point of a UBI is not to redistribute wealth. It's to provide a minimum standard of living for everyone more efficiently than means-tested programs do.

If you're going to provide a minimum standard of living to everyone, a UBI does this with minimal distortion of incentives.

[randomdata]

> The point of a UBI is not to redistribute wealth.

Right, technically the point is to redistribute the productive capacity of that wealth so that everyone has access to a minimum amount of its production.

But is there a meaningful difference? For all intents and purposes, capturing a share of the production is equivalent to owning a share in the wealth.

[jnwatson]

Huh? The Alaska permanent fund comes from mineral royalties, which is literally a type of tax.

[Ajay-p]

Royalties are not really a tax like taxes on citizens are.