[voxgen]

It requires tax increases, and the average earner's UBI will typically balance out the tax increase, meaning they don't directly profit.

UBI isn't about giving everyone free money. It's about giving everyone a safety net, so that they can take bigger economic risks and aren't pushed into crime or bullshit work.

The upper half of society will only see the indirect benefits, like having greater employment/investment choices due to more entrepreneurialism.

[robocat]

> due to more entrepreneurialism.

We have three awesome control groups currently:

(1) Retirees with skills don't suddenly decide to become entrepreneurs when they reach 65.

(2) people on the dole don't suddenly become entrepreneurs. We even used to have a specific programme in New Zealand for the unemployed to start their own business . . . I'm fairly sure it didn't work.

(3) mothers on the DPB get a good whack of money even with kids that don't need Hyde time investment. It is rare to see them do anything more entrepreneurial than an under-the-table job.

I love your optimism, but it isn't realistic.

[Flamingoat]

> It requires tax increases, and the average earner's UBI will typically balance out the tax increase, meaning they don't directly profit.

A good portion of my salary is already taken by Tax and the government wastes it. I've seen the waste first hand when contracting for both Local, Nation Government. I was so disgusted by this, I have made every effort to avoid working with them.

I've also seen this waste happen in large charities and ossified corporations. The former also disgusting me as I know they would simply piss away a few thousand on complete BS, that took a whole village to collect and for it not to go towards the stated purpose of the charity. As a result I don't donate to any charities that aren't local.

Every-time someone suggests a tax increase, I know for a fact they haven't seen the waste happen first hand.

> UBI isn't about giving everyone free money. It's about giving everyone a safety net, so that they can take bigger economic risks and aren't pushed into crime or bullshit work.

Giving everyone a safety net will require giving people money that is taken from others. To the people that benefit it is seen as "free" and will become "expected" and won't be treated as a safety net.

Being a responsible adult is about reducing the amount of risk you are taking, not increasing it.

So what you will be doing it teaching people to essentially gamble and people did similar during COVID. Some people took their cheques and put it into crypto, meme stocks or whatever. Some won big, most didn't.

I've met people in my local area that have lost huge amounts of money on risky investments, everything from property developments, to bitcoin. Creating an incentive for risk taking without the consequences is actually reckless, a massive moral hazard and will simply create perverse incentives.

> The upper half of society will only see the indirect benefits, like having greater employment/investment choices due to more entrepreneurialism.

You will be taxing those people more and they will have less to invest. The reason why many people invest is because they have disposable income that they can afford to risk.

By taxing people more (which you admit would have to happen), they will have less disposable income and will be inclined to invest less as a result.