It only works for a relatively small group of people. Scaling it up to 100% of the population would result in inflation.
Surely that is what the vast majority of people already do?
Compare that to property where there is a limited supply and people are constrained in what they can buy by their salary and ability to get a mortgage.
Those countries have progressive income taxes and social benefits for those without work. Isn't this the same as what UBI would look like if aggregate income would stay the same?
See my other comment https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=23140692
In your other post you state that Finnish effective marginal tax rate for poor persons is more than 80%. Do you have a source for that?
>Do you have a source for that?
Yes. https://vatt.fi/documents/2956369/3012213/muistio_50.pdf
It's in Finnish, but if you go to page 13 there is a nice graph. x-axis is wage, EUR/month, y-axis is effective marginal income tax in year 2015 for single person household who pays rent 440 EUR/month. Effective marginal tax rate is the red dotted line.
In page 20 you can see even what single adult with a child can have. I was actually wrong, the effective marginal tax rate can spike above 11% in some cases.
How so? I understand the "it's the same, just with less bureaucracy" camp wants everybody to get UBI, but everyone that's not below a certain threshold will essentially pay all of the UBI back via increased taxation.
So if you get $1000 in welfare now and you earn money, this changes the amount of welfare you receive. I understand that. How does that change if you get $1000 in UBI and for every buck you make, you'll pay essentiall $1 in taxes? You'll still only actually have more money when you're > $1000 on income.