> that means the average person is loosing 4 out of every 10$ their earning. And, that's just the average.
Yeah, that's just the average. The median person is paying less, and should be paying even less than that.
It sounds like you're saying that people who depend on food stamps and unemployment will see a smaller benefit under UBI than people who earn enough not to require those benefits.
1000$ a month was chosen because you are supposed to be able to live with that amount. I would expect to be extra allowances for children etc.
There is no such thing as "at the expense of the poor" here. Everybody gets it. If you are middle class it comes out directly out of your taxes anyway. It is a minimum income that should help you decide to start a new career or create a small company for example, now that you know that whatever happens you will always get 1000$ a month.
The real problem is how to realize this tax. I think it is probably too hard to actually appraise everything/etc; thus something like a monetary policy might be appropriate. The problem here is that USD is not in a vacuum so side effects might make this impossible.
The problem with the world isn't distribution of wealth. The problem is NOT enough wealth in the first place. We need to concentrate on addressing that problem.
Also, gov is already such an enormous burden on people in the US. Right now almost 40% of US GDP is gov spending. that means the average person is loosing 4 out of every 10$ their earning. And, that's just the average. I'm sure in coastal areas the burden is much much higher.