The problem I have with the system is that everyone who is actually paying receives the least benefits. It's just wealth redistribution. But inevitably it also disincentives work the more the subsides increase in value, and the sharper the drop-off as additional work is performed.
So how do you structure a system which encourages work? The obvious solution is that benefits should increase as tax payments increase. The makes working super-incentivized, and provides a massive boost to productivity.
Aside from technology improvements, which the economists tell us aren't really providing bang for the buck anymore, increasing the size of the workforce increases GDP growth.
I imagine they would pay less, rather than just break even.
They have workers because they need them to run their business, not out of a sense of charity.
Talk of automation as a 'threat' every time workers rights are brought up is disingenuous and a bit self serving.
One key point is that being able to work to subsidize the basic income makes the income much more powerful than "phantom" dollars that disappear as soon as you start to work.
The trick is that the funding level of basic income doesn't have to "fully cover" a family of four. The family of four will be able to supplement the income, rather than today being locked into receiving it. Also, it doesn't mean that programs like SSDI go away, you still can provide national disability insurance.
That's a pretty grim picture that no one seems to be acknowledging.
Grim is having an infection with no way to get antibiotics, but you use your friend's because he had some that he never used.
Grim is going to the food pantry because you ran out of money and then you have to fill out a promise to get financial help if you need to use the food pantry too often, as if you don't know how money works.
Sounds to me like you need to get out more and see how people really live.
I'd rather live in a world where I can't watch all the tv I want cuz i can't afford any, but at least I get basic healthcare.
Maybe you should check profiles before saying ugly things like "you need to get out more and see how people really live."
Like what if it is implemented as a negative income tax?
Would a sub-basic income of $5 (implemented as a negative income tax) be regressive?
The actual end result will be far greater tax payer cost for fully subsidizing people that no longer have any employment, versus partial subsidization.
There isn't an advanced economy in all of Europe for example that doesn't use heavy government (aka the top 50% of income earners) subsidization for the benefit of the bottom 50% of earners. The healthcare systems in Britain and France? The bottom 50% of employed persons are not primarily paying for those very expensive benefits, they're receiving large government subsidies that help offset their terrible pay, in the form of all sorts of welfare benefits. Britain for example has such a low median wage, it barely qualifies them as the 50th poorest US state, how do you think their bottom 50% of workers get by if not through huge subsidies via the government to offset that terrible pay? For some reason when companies in the US do the same exact thing, it's evil.