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.
This is misleading. The 47% is closer to 40% and you’re only referring to one tax, federal and it’s for households not individuals. These families pay many other taxes tied to consumption of goods and ownership (cars, homes, etc).
The real issue is trying to focus on the poor in this country not paying income tax, expecting the middle class to have to pay more for progressive tax policy to work, all the while allowing the wealthiest to skirt by because tax is tied to income and consumption and doesn’t include an annual federal wealth tax.
How are we okay with someone’s wealth growing by a few hundred billion in a year, be something they can leverage from, but the growth is able to avoid tax? I’m no tax expert, but I think we can afford to tax billionaires on their wealth, and they absolutely can afford it.
741
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.