(January 6, 2024 at 6:07 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:(January 6, 2024 at 5:24 am)neil Wrote: No, I can't justify it; however, with a UBI, the desperately poor would have more money than they do today without a UBI.
There are feasibility issues with economic socialism, such as the economic calculation problem.
Would the UBI be in addition to or in lieu of aid to the poor already in place?
Would you put an upper income limit on the UBI?
Boru
A UBI could be implemented in addition to aid to the poor already in place; I also happen to believe that there are ways that aid to the poor already in place can be improved without a UBI, and with a UBI, I think it might be able to further improve aid to the poor already in place.
Personally I don't think that there's any need to put an upper income limit on a UBI; with the approach I propose, everyone gets UBI regardless of income, since it's compensation that the wealthy would be just as entitled to, as compensation in exchange for property rights, as the poor.
Economically/mathematically speaking, it wouldn't be a drain on the allocation of tax (or tariff, etc.) revenue collected from payouts to wealthy vs. poor individuals, since the ratio of wealthy people to poor people is huge; this makes the total going to the wealthy a negligible amount, compared to what still remains for the poor.
