Most serious UBI proposals are almost cost-neutral. In other words, most people would not get any more money than they already get.
The main source of funding would be income taxes. The highest or second highest income tax bracket would start at 0. If you earn your living, UBI would be little more than an accounting trick for you. You would get some "free" money but pay higher taxes, and the end result would be more or less the same.
Some tax credits and deductions might go away, and related taxes such as capital gains taxes might also change.
UBI would replace some existing welfare benefits and make them automatic. The biggest impact would be on those in minimum-wage jobs and those alternating between unemployment and low-income jobs. Their financial situation would improve, and they would also face less bureaucracy. And this is pretty much the only place where UBI would be more expensive than the current system.
Ah, thanks. So, the "universal" in UBI is a misnomer since everyone is society is not actually getting the stipend equally. Rather, it's a redistribution of funds from the rich to the poor. I would think a better name for it then would be a "Robinhood System" vice a "UBI".
The main source of funding would be income taxes. The highest or second highest income tax bracket would start at 0. If you earn your living, UBI would be little more than an accounting trick for you. You would get some "free" money but pay higher taxes, and the end result would be more or less the same.
Some tax credits and deductions might go away, and related taxes such as capital gains taxes might also change.
UBI would replace some existing welfare benefits and make them automatic. The biggest impact would be on those in minimum-wage jobs and those alternating between unemployment and low-income jobs. Their financial situation would improve, and they would also face less bureaucracy. And this is pretty much the only place where UBI would be more expensive than the current system.