It all depends on the chosen funding details. Who pays for Alaska's dividend? The state charges oil companies for drilling rights. 25% of those funds are invested in Alaska's Permanent Fund. That fund which is now over $60 billion in size is invested in markets and pays a dividend which is split among all residents of Alaska as co-owners of the oil of Alaska. Is oil the only resource we can use as a nation to fund UBI? No. We have a ton of natural resources that no one made that we can consider as co-owned as citizens.
Then there's all the taxes we're already paying and how they are being used in welfare programs better replaced by cashing them out and firing the bureaucrats employed by them.
Then there's all the tax expenditures we provide, all $1.5 trillion of it which is effectively welfare for the rich and middle class, that would make more sense as cash instead of credits, deductions, allowances, and subsidies in the tax code created as loopholes for special interests.
Then there's the fact machines are transforming the labor market and increasing productivity, while putting downward pressure on wages. Wages used to increase alongside productivity. That hasn't been true for decades. That increased productivity that now results in higher profits and decreased wages should be made to increase incomes.
The question of who pays requires discussion, and that discussion will vary nation by nation as each country decides for themselves what makes the most sense for them.
Personally, in the US, I'd go about funding it with welfare reform, tax code reform, a 10% VAT, a 5% land value tax, an annually increasing carbon tax, and a tiny financial transaction tax. I have no interest in increasing income taxes to pay for UBI, and in fact UBI would lower income taxes because it operates as a large tax rebate.
If your taxes go up $6,000 to pay for a $12,000 UBI, your taxes actually just went down $6,000. Four out of five households in the US would see reduced tax burdens with UBI. Meanwhile, those at the top earning around $200,000 and over would on average see about a 10% increase in their tax burdens.
The result would be savings even greater than the increase, through increased health, reduced crime, and higher productivity.
If you have any other questions, please read my UBI FAQ.
Is oil the only resource we can use as a nation to fund UBI? No.
Good point.
Alaska did the right thing...all the states AND the Federal government would do well to emulate them regarding natural resources.
This is actually a really interesting paper that dives into this particular angle, looking into the possibility of a "resource poor" state like Vermont to follow Alaska's lead using their own resources at hand to provide a dividend.
one thing...If you aspire to the higher ground. If you claim to be moral.
you can't build it on theft.
Taxation isn't theft. I realize you fundamentally disagree with statement, despite thieves not being known for stealing 20% of the contents of someone's wallet and then giving them in exchange a huge number of goods and services worth far more than what was in their wallet in return. However let's assume it's indeed theft, and as you argue, theft is wrong.
Okay, so is there anything more wrong than theft of property? Is murder for example worse than theft? If you had some food that someone needed to not die, and you had plenty of food, is it more wrong for that person to take a fraction of your food to not die, or is it more wrong for you to watch them die?
I think there are a whole lot of things that we can consider immoral in this world, and some are more immoral than others. I think this whole fundamentalist "taxation is theft" meme is just absurd, but even if we agree on its validity, I value human life far more than property, and I think killing someone is a whole lot worse than having a fraction of your money taken to prevent death.
I also think that if we're going to tax people, we should choose the form of tax that makes the most sense (not income tax), and it should be used in a way that involves the most freedom and the least government.
Taxation is not going anywhere. No democracy is going to vote for having everything government provides to them taken away. People are not going to vote to eliminate their health care, their pensions, their schools, their military, their fire departments, their police forces, their roads, and everything else. However, taxation itself can be done in better ways, and what it pays to provide can be done in better ways.
I'd rather fight for a better society, than for an imaginary fantasy.
so MANY strawmen...where to start.
so I won't.
I'll just debunk your first falsehood.
theft is the taking of another person's property or services without that person's permission
that describes taxation perfectly. The reason is irrelevant.
all the taxes we're already paying and how they are being used in welfare programs better replaced by cashing them out and firing the bureaucrats employed by them
government programs are mostly welfare for the bureaucrats.