I think the generous reading, and the one I agree with, is that it is on the scale of "FU money". Any reliable source of income that can satisfy needs means that you have more freedom to refuse to do X, Y, or Z.

This is the key to FU Money, an increase in freedom since your base needs are met and secure; agreed that in common parlance it usually is applied to people that have so much money they can live like a king and say no to whatever they want.

The article's specifically using the term to indicate "I don't have to take/keep a crappy job just to survive", rather than "I'm financially independent of all jobs for every monetary goal", and I'd say that UBI fits that basic idea pretty well.

> I'm financially independent of all jobs for every monetary goal

He's living "frugally" as described in his article. I don't think that what's people expect from UBI when they talk about it.

For some people, I imagine, enough to live on IS fu money. Not everyone needs the profligacy of a car, house, travel, etc., a large amount of personal space.

Enough for mental health without the great of losing everything and being homeless.

market will eat ubi by adjusting prices, and politicians will abuse ubi by promising more ubi

It's relative - it's FU money for anti-exploitation from bad bosses or abusive spouses you might otherwise be forced to work/live with; UBI could give you a decent living in a small town but not in New York City where the Landlord-Rental complex and gentrification is in full effect.

but with UBI you'd not be forced to live in NYC just to get any job.

Universal Basic Income is NOT Fuck You Money as it is totally reliant on government for a source of income. True "Fuck You Money" is having enough in diversified assets to a point you never have to work for anyone the rest of your entire life. It's also not maybe having enough money for a few years as some would seem to suggest here.

When I worked retail in college, “fuck you money” for my colleagues could be as little as $2,500.

One guy I worked with worked from 5am to 2pm in the mall bakery, took a nap in the backroom, the was a line cook from 4p-midnight. Mostly because of some debts and a situation that prevented his wife from working.

I think what the parent meant is no more wage slavery is required to survive, so fu to minimum-wage drudgery. Jobs will have to offer something besides survival

FU money implies never needing to work again...

...which is exactly what UBI intends.

FU money means you have more than what you need. Relying on UBI means you become slave to a system that does not depend on you (external) for your survival, which is the opposite of actually having FU money. It's a big old trap.

What you need is a function of what you have come to expect.

Electricity. Wifi. Fast internet. Air conditioning. Running water. Access to nutritious food and good medicine. Some of those are needs, others are not. The ones which are directly maintaining you in good health are needs.

Don't sacrifice your needs (8 hours of sleep a day, for example) for your wants (a shiny new iPhone or bigger apartment) over the years.

It's not black and white. As we give more and more UBI, we rebalance the power dynamic between employers and employees. It starts to obviate the need for minimum wage laws and unions, because people can start to ask for 30 hour work weeks, time off to raise their own kids, study a new career, contribute to science and open source software and so on. They'll be able to take more entrepreneurial risks, too. A society with UBI would have a lot more people contributing to gift economies.

The most serious proposal for UBI in the United States (serious in that people talked about it for a few minutes) was from Andrew Yang, who proposed $1000 a month for all adults. It would be difficult for most people to live on that without getting a lot of other free stuff to go with it.

$1000/mo is $6.25/hr at 40 hours per week. Minimum wage is only $1/hr more[0] and people are expected to live on that. $6.25/hr with no 40hr time commitment is a pretty sweet deal.

[0] US federal minimum wage

Isn't that like at least 3.8 trillion per year?

Only on paper. Taxes on the average income would increase by a compensating $1000/month making it essentially invisible to them and balanced in the government books. It's only on the rich and the poor where the effects would be noticeable.

In practice, it would have a similar impact on the books as a program that gave $1000/month to just the poor people. Giving the money to everybody and then taxing it back from most makes it seem much larger but makes it a wash in practice.

The fed currently takes in about 3.8 in taxes total spends about 4.2 (minus giant things being thrown about currently). About 2.3 is towards 'entitlement programs'. This 'UBI' I would assume would take over the 2.3? Leaving a gap of about 1.5 trillion to make it to the 1000 a month, minus what is given back to those who 'wash'. Plus whatever other deficit is going on?

The key here is the phrase, "currently takes in".

There is a huge amount of taxes that the ultra-wealthy are currently NOT paying. In fact, the vast majority of income taxes are actually paid by the lower and middle classes, because once you hit a certain level of income you have enough money to pay professionals to help you shelter your money and avoid taxes.

For example, Warren Buffet only paid $1.8 million in taxes in 2015, even though his wealth was worth 72 billion at the time. His wealth literally grew 12 billion that year, and he only paid $1.8 million in taxes.

That means he paid only 0.015% in taxes, in terms of wealth growth vs income taxes paid.

Meanwhile, someone earning $100K would have paid around 20% of their income...

Looking at IRS data, top 1% tax payers in US in 2018 paid 38.5% of the federal income taxes. Bottom 90% paid 28.6%. So I don't think they're as good as hiding their money in the Cayman Islands as you think they are: https://taxfoundation.org/federal-income-tax-data-2021/

In comparison top 10% of the Danish tax payers paid just 31.3% of the total income tax, despite Denmark having rather high taxation (the OECD method that puts it as #1 is controversial, but I pay e.g. a 42% marginal tax rate on any capital gains).

There's a large difference between:

'share of the total taxes the rich pay'

And

'the percentage of their wealth the rich pay'

It may only take the rich 5% of their income to pay the 38.5% of total taxes because they're capturing so much of the value generated in America and hiding it whereever.

If I buy a bar of gold it may go up or down in value. Until I cash out, that value is 'locked up'. Do not confuse income with wealth. They are locked at the hip and are very closely related but are not the same thing. That is where most of 'the rich' keep their 'money'. They do not keep most of it in large bank accounts. Take the top 2 guys right now. Most of their 'wealth' is in stocks for 2 companies that have had their valuation go extremely high. Oh they are rich. But if they cashed out they lose control of their companies. You can clearly see what is more important to them. Even the warren buffet example from above is someone who keeps his money in a company that buys other companies and makes them profitable. Lives extremely modestly and plays with coupons. His wealth is locked up in companies that makes jobs. You probably could tax them another 10-20% more and not really move the needle on what they pay. Because they manage their wealth not their income.

You're right but you're discussing something totally different.