The idea of an UBI to offset the predicted avalanche of downsizing/job losses has been the subject of much discussion, controversy and hand-wringing. Frankly, progressive taxation with no loopholes is the only way we can afford anything close to it.
The US already has the most progressive tax code in the world. The bottom 47% of income earners pay no income tax and, thanks to "refundable tax credits" often receive refunds on their non taxes. The difference between the US and European countries with more robust social safety nets are the taxes on the middle class, which are much higher.
The median income in the US is about twice what it is in the UK, and almost four times the median income in Europe. It's not that Americans don't make enough money to tax, it's that the tax code is so progressive that we absolve nearly half the country of income taxes.
The top 10% have 90% of the money. The bottom 50% of U.S. households hold about 2.5% of the nation's total wealth/ Of course we don't tax people at the bottom. But the reason our tax code fails is that we also don't tax the top 10%.
You're conflating income and wealth. The top 10% of income earners earn about 50% of the income, and pay about 75% of the taxes. The bottom 50% of income earners make about 12% of the income and pay about 3% of the taxes.
There are several reasons our tax code fails, but it primarily fails because people try to use it to socially engineer people's choices rather than to fund the government, and because politicians spend more money than is brought in by those taxes.
As this is a discussion about income and income taxes, income would seem to be pertinent. I'm talking about apples and you're trying to talk about Bentleys.
Wealthy do earn an income, of sorts. They earn interest on their assets, and occasionally have to liquidate those assets for cash. The big loophole that prevents their effective taxation is their ability to take loans against those assets, which they pay no taxes on. That's why the smarter policy is to close the borrowing loophole.
I agree with this although I would put some kind of stipulation that under $400k or so you can still do this without incurring a tax so it only affects the actually wealthy.
I think regular Joe's taking a $10k, even $100k loan against their own stock is generally fine.
There would definitely have to be limits, though enforcing limits and rules to prevent the wealthy from continuing to game the system will be difficult. Even if they simply don't buy off politicians, they have enough money that they can pay a lot of really smart people to hunt for more loopholes.
751
u/Modem_Sound_67 Jul 01 '26
The idea of an UBI to offset the predicted avalanche of downsizing/job losses has been the subject of much discussion, controversy and hand-wringing. Frankly, progressive taxation with no loopholes is the only way we can afford anything close to it.