The way someone with $100,000,000 would perceive $1000 is how someone with $100,000 would perceive $1.

  • jeffw@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Which is one of the reasons I actually oppose UBI. Also, in practice, it will be used to replace SSI, not enhance it. At least in the USA, a better answer is fixing and expanding the SSI and Social Security system. People making 6 figures don’t need an extra $1k a month or whatever figure people want to suggest. But giving very poor people an extra $2k, moderately poor people $1k, etc. would be a bigger help. And the idea would be if you make $2 or $3 more dollars, you lose $1 in support

    Edit: it would have to taper more slowly, maybe $10 you lose $1. It’s funny to see the downvotes, I don’t often see Lemmy folks defending ideas from conservative economists like Friedman.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      What is the cutoff point, where someone making more than that amount can use an extra $1k, but not someone making that amount?

      • jeffw@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        It decreases with income, as I said. If we give $2,000 to everyone making under $60k, for example, then decrease it for every few bucks you make. You’d probably have to do something like a 10:1 ratio where is you make $60,010, you’d get $1999 and so on. That would mean people making $80k or more don’t get anything. And they don’t really need it anyway.

        But regardless, UBI, even under Yang, is always an attempt to destroy and replace our current welfare system. Poor people would barely get any more than they currently do under SSI

        • 3volver@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Your assumption that SSI would be somehow removed or replaced is shit. Universal basic income should never be based on income, it goes against the entire point. Universal basic income would be on top of any existing benefits and wouldn’t impact any other benefits.