Those seem incompatible to me.

(UBI means Universal Basic Income, giving everyone a basic income, for free)

  • ZahzenEclipse@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    "One glaring problem with allowing this program to exist for any extended period of time is that, unless it is privately funded, it would be too expensive to maintain and would require substantial tax increases across the board.

    The group’s page even admits that, saying, “there’s a number of ways to pay for guaranteed income, from a sovereign wealth fund in which citizens benefit from shard national resources like the Alaska Permanent Fund, to bringing tax rates on the wealthiest Americans to their 20th century historical averages.”

    I think it part of it may have been related to how high taxes might have to be made and it would be damn near impossible to pass those level of taxes. It couldn’t be done souly city by city I don’t think otherwise wealthy would flee the city to avoid the taxes levied - at least that woulf be a concern of mine.

        • snooggums@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          It starts with the assumption that raising taxes is unreasonable.

          Bringing taxes up to their 20th century averages is completely reasonable, as they were highest during the time period where actual business growth was the highest.

          • ZahzenEclipse@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Do you think the majority of US citizens want higher taxes? There’s alot of de-programming that has to be done. Democrats, who are generally better than Republicans when it comes to this stuff (due to the low bar they’ve erected) aren’t necessarily full on board with tax increases.

            • snooggums@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              Taxed at a flat percentage of income or progressively without caps, 75% of people UBI will be a net increase in income over what their taxes would increase. It should be an easy sell unless there is a lot of misinformation or demonizing of low income people.

              Of course people also don’t understand how single payer would save most people thousands per year by cutting out all the for profit companies, since misinformation is such a problem.

    • spacecowboy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Okay so, there are a bunch of different agencies in charge of different types of social services. If you have UBI, those are no longer required. The money is coming from those programs. You spend LESS because you don’t have a giant work force on the back end of all those services/agencies anymore.

      Eg. current: 20 departments, 100 people working at each. Gives out 1 million dollars a year in social services.

      UBI: 1 department. Far less than the total of above working for it. Gives out 1 million dollars a year in social services.

      See? The numbers are fluff just for the sake of the example.