Taxing wealth instead of work is touted as an important part of the solution to the wealth gap, but I’m curious which other solutions have been proposed or attempted and have succeeded or failed.
Taxing wealth instead of work is touted as an important part of the solution to the wealth gap, but I’m curious which other solutions have been proposed or attempted and have succeeded or failed.
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.