Hey Rick Fischer, thanks for responding.
I think you engage with two misconceptions that’d be useful to clarify for these debates.
First, suggesting that the cost of UBI = (population) x (proposed UBI level) is dangerously misleading and, depending on context, often incorrect. The reasons why are well explained by Georgetown professor of political philosophy, Karl Widerquist, here and here. Check it out and see what you think.
Second, nowhere in my article do I suggest that the policy suggested — higher marginal tax rates for the top income bracket — would be enough to fund UBI on its own. I haven’t encountered a single UBI funding proposal that employs a single funding method. Such a proposal, as you suggest, is very unlikely. I especially don’t advocate higher corporate tax rates, as I believe you rightly state doing so could risk more harm than good.
Have you read Scott Santens work on Medium? He’s written a wealth of detailed, analytical articles regarding UBI. Check out his funding proposal, very much an earnest attempt at fiscal reality:
There’s also recent working coming from the RSA who have their own vision for approaching UBI, and they’ve produced among the most detailed proposals yet, here. They also publish posts on Medium towards this end, here.
Conversely, would love to hear if you’ve encountered any ideas that you think might be useful? It sounds like you’re either in support of, or at least open to the idea of UBI. Do you have any sources/ideas for funding UBI that might enrich the debate, so that future articles might take them into consideration?
