[secstate]

I mean, we're basically heading towards a basic minimum income at that point, where you truncate the top 5% of the tax ladder and redistribute it to the bottom 25%. At that point, people could pay for services.

Dig a little into the idea that people can "pay" with their attention (and with their poor health, crappy buying decisions, personal freedoms) might fit the dictionary definition of sinister.

[chii]

> truncate the top 5% of the tax ladder and redistribute it to the bottom 25%. At that point, people could pay for services.

why should those at the top 5% pay for more than basic subsistence to the 25% at the bottom? Welfare is for survival (and survival only), not for services that is not essential.

[withinboredom]

I suspect you have no idea what the “top 5%” looks like (in the US).

The bottom of that 5% looks like extremely upper middle class. Big houses, probably a vacation somewhere nice once a year, new cars fairly regularly, etc.

The middle most likely live in gated communities, with any kids going to private schools. They fly first/business class everywhere and can probably even afford to buy one of those tickets at a moments notice. Their closet is worth more than most people will earn in several years of working.

At the top end, these people have multiple tennis courts, pools, basketball courts, etc in their back yard. If there is something they want, they most likely have staff on hand to handle it. If they want to go somewhere, they hop in one of their private jets, helicopters, or chauffeured cars and go there. Oh, and they have a team of lawyers ensuring they never pay a dime in taxes.

Source: spent some time with each of these personas in my life.

[secstate]

This space is too small for a philosophical debate about the merits of UBI. Suffice it to say, when the top 5% has 1,000x more than they need for subsistence and the bottom 25% has never had access to more than 1x more than they need for subsistence, nothing will ever change. And more to the point, because having 10-20 times more than you need for subsistence has a demonstrable impact on your ability to generate more wealth 1) some will always get richer and pull away from the majority over time and 2) eventually the majority of people without subsistence amounts of wealth will rise up and kill you.

Maybe that wont happen in our current system for a generation or two. But then the question those 5% at the top have to ask themselves is whether they feel lucky to avoid an uprising against them in their lifetime.

[n4r9]

Yeah, the trade-off of switching money for attention is not obviously beneficial to society. For example I can easily imagine that there's a significant mental health impact of being constantly advertised newer and better things.