Comment

You’d increase taxes along with UBI, so most middle class people would end up neutral (or slightly positive). You can’t just dump tons of money into the economy without turning other dials to keep it stable.

A wealth tax would essentially be redirecting money from the top 1% and guarantee a stable monetary floor for everyone.

Probably there’s a dozen other changes, along with bankruptcy protections, interest rates, and anti scam protection would also need to be implemented.

You identified an obvious problem, which has been considered by intelligent UBI advocates that have studied this for a long time.

source

Sort:hotnew top

treadful@lemmy.zip ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
I think this is kind of the big problem with the messaging. I know plenty of economists say it would work, but it’s non-intuitive to most of us.

source
- snooggums@midwest.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Do people understand that rent and other necessity prices are skyrocketing right now without income increasing? They are not intertwined in the way the myth of raising rent to match UBI is presented.
  
  source
  - Literati@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Rents are skyrocketing because demand is high and we literally do not have enough housing for the number of people we have in the places they live.
    
    Suddenly dumping more money into the economy would just increase the price bar on that demand, and prices would go up more.
    
    Prices can increase for a lot of reasons, and going up from one doesn’t stop them from going up from another.
    
    source
- Lmaydev@programming.dev ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  This seems like it’s the only way it would work.
  
  Everyone gets a certain amount a month.
  
  You get taxed a certain amount back depending how much you make above some threshold. The average wage could be good.
  
  So now the high earners are funding the system. But if they get sick and can’t work the tax goes away but they’re still getting that base payment automatically.
  
  Low earners get help and high earners get a safety net.
  
  source
  - catsup@lemmy.one ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    That sounds really good for the low-earners, but what incentive is there to become a high-earner in such a system?
    
    source
    Lmaydev@programming.dev ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Firstly the safety net it provides.
    
    Then it all comes down to how much you are taxed back and the threshold. Most high earners wouldn’t notice it. And they would have had the payment until they started earning high.
    
    You or your partner could stay at home with the children, your kids would get money, you can get sick without worrying about money, it helps everyone.
    
    High earners already pay higher taxes.
    
    If your argument against it is “what about selfish rich people” then I would say fuck em.
    
    source
- dandroid@sh.itjust.works ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  I have found that economy experts say that things are counterintuitive more often that any other field. I think at this point I have just accepted that the economy is some black magic that I’ll never understand. So I’m gonna smile, nod, and let the experts do their thing.
  
  source
  - Scrof@sopuli.xyz ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Ah yes, economy experts. The ones who can’t solve any single economic problem and who can’t predict a single crisis. Very useful people.
    
    source
    dandroid@sh.itjust.works ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Well, you could blame that on the fact that economy experts don’t have the power to do any of those things. Politicians do.
    
    source
    Literati@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Economics is just psychology masquerading as a hard science
    
    source
- z00s@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Public messaging is difficult for economics because of its complex nature. Even when you simplify it, the interconnected nature of seemingly unrelated things and unforseen consequences often escape people. Then there’s the human element which sometimes produces baffling outcomes.
  
  But all that most people think is “Why do I have to pay so much for petrol? That’s bad.”
  
  source
  - treadful@lemmy.zip ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Yeah, but it’s important to drum up political support.
    
    source
    z00s@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Unfortunately, yes
    
    source
xantoxis@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Don’t forget price controls, strong anti-collusion legislation and strong antitrust.

source
Toes@ani.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
I’d like to see any income above 2k / month get redistributed globally.

source
- SeeJayEmm@lemmy.procrastinati.org ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Where do you live that 24k/yr is a livable wage?
  
  source
  - Nighed@sffa.community ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Untaxed maybe?
    
    source
- kobra@lemm.ee ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Huh? Does that mean $2k/month is your cap for what anyone should ever need/want? It just seems incredibly low to me so I’m confused.
  
  source
- lvxferre@mander.xyz ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  People are focusing too much on your number, and too little on your take.
  
  I think that a strong progressive tax works better than just two brackets (no taxation vs. full taxation). Specially when coupled with universal basic income - the idea is to eat the rich, not the slightly less poorer, on those you just nibble.
  
  source
- TokenBoomer@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Radical. I like it. Maybe $4000/month to keep it above the poverty line (so it’s not a such a shock to the system). Lol
  
  source
BlindFrog@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Like taxes on luxury goods?

source
ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
This doesn’t answer ops question at all, aside from “I’m sure ubi advocates have thought about this”.

source