Many, with the benefit of a prosperous economy and stable polity.

I'm not interested to pay 15k in taxes to receive 5k back as UBI, regardless of economy or stability.

How much you plan to pay in taxes to support my UBI?

I'm not interested in what you claim to pay in taxes. UBI benefits aren't solely to a person's bank account; the benefits include a prosperous economy and stable political environment their bank operates in.

I expect to pay and continue paying a lot, yet the benefit is more than what I pay in taxes. What's better is that our current UBI is quite a bit above zero already, but the distribution is fraught with large costs in time. Re-organizing and streamlining UBI distribution would result in significant cost improvements to the current US welfare approach, and improve its impact.

> the benefits include a prosperous economy and stable political environment their bank operates in.

Can you back your claim with facts? UBI is universal, not magic.

> I expect to pay and continue paying a lot,

Just say a number, so we will put it into formula to see is your expected taxation will match minimum requirement for UBI.

Typical wealth distribution without UBI:

  ^
  |
  |
  |     *
  |   *   *
  |  *     *
  | *        *
  | *          *
  |*                 *           *       *
  +------------------------------------------------>

   ^ - number of people, > - income

Typical wealth distribution with UBI:

  ^  *
  |
  |
  |
  |       
  |
  |
  |     
  |   *
  |   *
  |    *
  |     *
  |         *      *               *
  +--U------------------------------------------->

   ^ - number of people, > - income, U - UBI level

Please notice, that area (sum of n*i) of both graphs must be same, i.e. you cannot just print money like in computer game.

As you see, UBI erases middle class. Everyone becomes poor, except some rich.

While I appreciate the great efforts to put hand-waving FUD via terminal histogram graphics for insertion into comments[0] (seriously, great job!), your point that the middle class is guaranteed to implode is nonsensical.

The US already has a non-zero UBI[1], it's simply inefficiently distributed via the negative income tax rate and various welfare efforts. That's a clear first area to fix things up. Then, if we need to increase the historically low tax rates on high income households or implement capital tax rates on the wealth, increases in taxes can be considered.

Further, from a theoretical perspective, the economy is not zero-sum. A rising tide lifts all boats; if less money has to be doled out to industries supporting enforced poverty, such as private jail systems among others, then there is more money in the economy for utilization for many things (including but not limited to UBI). General equilibrium effects often have counterintuitive effects, such as they are.

[0] https://xkcd.com/386/

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income_in_the_...

If you're not a bot, then respond to my question.

I must be getting awfully good at hitting the heart of the problem instead of feeding trolls if people are thinking I'm a bot. Turing tests ftw.

I answered your earlier questions already. I encourage you to read full threads.

> regardless of economy or stability.

So you're saying that you're a poor economist, then.

There are very few good economists.

Possibly, but surely only a few of them would be that bad to be willing to cut off their noses to spite their faces like that.

Are there any studies out there that link UBI and prosperous economy?

It's a bit early in the research space, but yes, the partial equilibria studied thus far show overall improvement.

A reasonable overview: https://econreview.berkeley.edu/unboxing-universal-basic-inc...