RE: Andrew Yang and the concept of "Universal Basic Income"

avatar
(Edited)

You are viewing a single comment's thread:

The elimination of complicated taxes and welfare distribution systems are the best arguments for UBI. However, with modern technology I fail to see why we need to give it to everyone including those in a high tax bracket. It should be a scaling system that slowly goes to zero as your income rises. Also with immigration there presents a challenge and property ownership. Do you really want to give $1000 a month to some rich person who moved to your country bought up some real estate, doesn't contribute to the economy and just sits there collecting the UBI with family members who also don't work?
I think if your worldwide income is over $100000 or if your worldwide networth is over $1000000 you should not be getting universal basic income. Citizens should not be a liability and UBI turns them into one.



0
0
0.000
1 comments
avatar

There is a great argument for a "negative tax" here as opposed to UBI. A basic minimum for everyone, scaling out into the normal tax rates as income rises has its merits. My frame of reference here is the Australian welfare system. Technology should be reducing the compliance and maintenance of a complicated system, but it doesn't seem to be.

To your last point:

Citizens should not be a liability and UBI turns them into one.

Some would argue that a UBI system recognizes citizens as an asset, that the economy should be investing in.

I'm not married to any one idea here, just enjoying the debate and the big picture thinking. There is, I think, massive disruptions to society on the way from automation and A.I. Can the government's help avoid a dystopian future, I hope so but am unconvinced.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts mate.

JK.

Posted using Partiko Android

0
0
0.000