In 2020, Australia massively increased welfare payments and conducted a live experiment in ending poverty, but when the subsidy was removed, many were thrown back into hardship. Leaving aside the moral dimension, would it be cheaper to end poverty than to maintain it?
UBI ends poverty and saves money. Just like “basic exemptions” parts of tax code are not government outlays, and simply mean that other tax rates are higher to not collect revenue from your first $12k or $25k in income. Similarly UBI is just tax credits/debits flowing from some to others. It is not governnment discretion. It doesn’t even have to be considered part of their budget, and with right tax code just a function of GDP and population.
UBI saves money because budgets for welfare, police/justice, and even use of healthcare services are reduced when poverty eliminated. Hatred and division is helpful to political class, but obviously disruptive/destructive to any social progress. Our new American History X politics were always jealousy about “special privileges for race-dominated poorer classes”.
UBI ends poverty and saves money. Just like “basic exemptions” parts of tax code are not government outlays, and simply mean that other tax rates are higher to not collect revenue from your first $12k or $25k in income. Similarly UBI is just tax credits/debits flowing from some to others. It is not governnment discretion. It doesn’t even have to be considered part of their budget, and with right tax code just a function of GDP and population.
UBI saves money because budgets for welfare, police/justice, and even use of healthcare services are reduced when poverty eliminated. Hatred and division is helpful to political class, but obviously disruptive/destructive to any social progress. Our new American History X politics were always jealousy about “special privileges for race-dominated poorer classes”.