Scott SantensIf you believe a line should be drawn so that a universal basic income isn't universal to exclude the rich, you'll create hoops to jump through that people you most want to jump through won't. You will exclude those most in need because of the desire to exclude those not in need.
If you want to exclude the rich from a universal basic income, then just focus on taxes. Tax them more than they receive in UBI. If you want a phaseout at $100k so that they get $0 of a $12k UBI, then just increase their taxes more than $12k. That's it. They will net benefit $0.
Imagine someone who is so poor they don't file taxes. If you get them $1k/mo because they have a Social Security number, they'll get it. If you insist on testing their income they won't get it, because they don't file taxes. If you erect hoops for the rich, you'll screw the poor.
Does that mean it will cost more to do UBI than GI or NIT? No. It does not cost more to provide $20 and ask for $10 back, than it does to provide $10.
Is giving $20 more inflationary? Not if the tax is withheld from paychecks so that someone earns $10 less when they get the $20.
Pēteris Krišjānis@scottsantens also rich are not that many, tracking them down and not paying UBI is just not worth it. Same with social programs in general - they have to be inclusive as much as possible.
Grumble@scottsantens I'm willing to pay the 1% some money that they don't need to make sure that the 99% get the money that they do need.
Let's start small: free school lunch for all students.
nonlinear@scottsantens Yup. By definition we don't have a lot of rich people in comparison.
Just governing the means testing apparatus is more expensive than the universal option. And error-prone. And open to systemic racism/sexism/queerphobia.
All industrialized nations already ran the math. Universal is cheaper and more precise.