“Universal basic income usually covers people’s basic needs but we want to see what effect this unconditional lump sum has on people’s mental and physical health, whether they choose to work or not,” says Will Stronge, the director of research at the thinktank Autonomy, which is backing the plan.

  • Troy@beehaw.orgOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The way these are usually envisioned long term is that tax rates go up to progressively eat up the universal payment.

    @Kichae I agree there are many UBI schemes that don’t really deserve the name for various reasons. A true universal basic income, however, could never be eaten up by tax for whatever group of people exactly because it’s universal and basic.

    A possible scheme, for example, would be that a UBI of 1,600 is guaranteed by the state, while every income above the UBI level is then taxed. So if you earn 2,000 and the tax rate is 40%, your tax amounts to (2,000 - 1,600)*0.4 = 160.

    An income of 1,600 would mean you pay no taxes at all as the 1,600 is the UBI, and any income below 1,600 triggered a negative tax rate (for example, if one earned 1,000 they would be given 600 from the state).

    In a nutshell: a real UBI can never be lowered by tax or any other public measures. Practically all researchers agree that this a very important feature of any UBI, no matter how it is designed.