Note that by my specific definition above, it doesn't really matter what's a "necessity"—that's just a cute flavor-word. They're really "inelastic-demand dollars."
And my point was that even UBI falls over when someone gets their UBI taken away by a fine. Starving is starving.
Not sure on the viability of it, but couldn't there be something in place that states that fines can only be levied at a maximum 10%/month of the UBI?
So if you get a parking ticket (presumably <1% UBI), you can just pay it, but if you get a large fine (20% UBI), you'd pay it off in two monthly payments of 10% each.
You'd probably need something in place to intervene if someone's constantly paying 10% every month due to multiple fines to prevent people racking up daft amounts of fines and just 'living on 90%'
Re:Request For Research: Basic Income
by andrewjl on Wednesday January 27, 2016 @10:53PM
(#10986115)
Agree with you about the fines.
Everyone has a slightly different demand elasticity for certain goods. To use myself as an example, I would buy the same amount of coffee if the price doubled tomorrow, but someone else may choose to cut back on their coffee consumption.
To go with your tobacco example, I personally don't believe that tobacco should be considered a necessity. (Though I have no problem with Nicorette / nicotine gum being in that category, which could be used by someone unable to buy cigarettes to satisfy their craving.) Someone else may have a different definition of a necessity vs nicety altogether.
It's much simpler IMO to just give people ordinary currency, and let them decide how to spend it best.