• frostysauce@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    Why the hell would we give the rich $12k/year.? It makes no sense for it to be “universal,” we should change the branding. Doesn’t make it the bad idea you are so eager to paint it.

    • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Taxes on the rich go way up, and so UBI is just a refundable tax credit, but some people pay more than they receive = taxation, where others receive more than they pay = negative taxation.

    • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      24 hours ago

      Why the hell would we give the rich $12k/year.?

      Because the administrative costs associated with making sure they don’t, will cost even more. That’s one of the main upsides of UBI–no means testing makes it have practically no ‘overhead’. If means testing were added, its price tag would be even higher.

    • UniversalBasicJustice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      24 hours ago

      Negative income tax solves the “rich people getting 12k/yr they don’t ‘need’” issue. Beaurocracy/overhead has already been mentioned as another reason.