Ask Science
Ask a science question, get a science answer.
Community Rules
Rule 1: Be respectful and inclusive.
Treat others with respect, and maintain a positive atmosphere.
Rule 2: No harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or trolling.
Avoid any form of harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or offensive behavior.
Rule 3: Engage in constructive discussions.
Contribute to meaningful and constructive discussions that enhance scientific understanding.
Rule 4: No AI-generated answers.
Strictly prohibit the use of AI-generated answers. Providing answers generated by AI systems is not allowed and may result in a ban.
Rule 5: Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
Adhere to community guidelines and comply with instructions given by moderators.
Rule 6: Use appropriate language and tone.
Communicate using suitable language and maintain a professional and respectful tone.
Rule 7: Report violations.
Report any violations of the community rules to the moderators for appropriate action.
Rule 8: Foster a continuous learning environment.
Encourage a continuous learning environment where members can share knowledge and engage in scientific discussions.
Rule 9: Source required for answers.
Provide credible sources for answers. Failure to include a source may result in the removal of the answer to ensure information reliability.
By adhering to these rules, we create a welcoming and informative environment where science-related questions receive accurate and credible answers. Thank you for your cooperation in making the Ask Science community a valuable resource for scientific knowledge.
We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.
view the rest of the comments
Universal Basic Income for people who are below an particular netwoth with it gradually decreasing until they get none.
It makes much more sense to just give it to everyone. If you start implementing means testing then you need to hire people to determine who is eligible for what, and administrative costs wind up being substantial.
This would not make it universal and is kind of reminiscent of what we call unemployment checks combined with the income dependent allowances we can receive for health insurance, rent and childcare.
This is in the Netherlands, for reference.
Kinda but not exactly. You would get the benifit even if you are working, unlike unemployment benifits which go away after employment.
If someone has minimal part time hours at Ah or Jumbo then the still get full ubi.
By definition, that is not "universal". In fact, that already exists with an additional clause: you must be unemployed to receive it - which doesn't make it basic income either.
But let's say basic income were implemented in the form you're talking about, how would it reduce the wealth gap? It's not like basic income increases wealth, does it?
Didnt say you had to be unemployed.
You reduct a wealth gat 2 ways, lowering the top or raising the bottom.
Can't do that without taxing the rich.
Cutting the top of the gap and raising the lower end are both parts of the solution. No one thing will fix the gap issue.
I agree with UBI, but what you're proposing isn't universal. On the one hand you could say this ensures everyone gets at least a minimum income, making it universal, but the implementation leads to biases, judgements and disparities. Every individual has unique needs and benefits that make it hard to determine how well they live.
I would support an efficient structure that can truly address each individual's needs. Administrative cost isn't just wasted money and social work is a job. On the other hand, half-measures in social supports are how we get disjointed programs, minimum payouts that keep people in poverty, and higher overhead costs for implementation.
Maybe I just want to see what happens if we give everyone the same amount of money and tax wealth and luxury items instead.
Giving everybody the same amount does nothing for wealth inequality. There needs to be a cutoff point. Someone making €150,000 a year doesn't need ubi where someone making €34,000 it would make a massive difference.
Who's to say the person making $150,000 is living better?
Anecdotally, I just moved from a city with a median rent of $1600/month to a town where I just pay for utilities, to watch someone's second home. I make the same amount of money.
I used to live near a low income grocery store that reduced my food expenses by 75%.
When I have access to a garden I can cut down my yearly food costs by a few hundred dollars.
I have no children. My friend with two kids makes twice as much as me and has less disposable income.
I still say give everyone the same amount. If it ends up making them disproportionately wealthy, tax the wealth.
If UBI doesn't nothing for wealth inequality, then by definition giving it to rich people won't do anything. A rich person getting 2k/month means getting pocket change. A poor person getting 2k/month will make a much bigger difference because percentage-wise it's a much bigger chunk of their disposable income. Also, one of the major points for UBI is that it's universal meaning a lot of bureaucracy can be removed if there are no strings attached and little to no conditions.
I do agree that UBI might not solve wealth inequality but it can be an important part of opportunity equality.
Or something similar, like have a UBI with brackets based on net worth. For each bracket the UBI decreases as your net worth increases.
And then also have a bracketed income tax for income earned outside of UBI. Where income earned up to some multiple of UBI (like 3x-4x), is tax free but beyond that it's taxed at progressively higher rates, eventually reaching 100%.
Pretty much.