posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 07:16 AM
On paper, this sounds really good -- but there are a couple of issues I see that would need to be worked out.
I agree with Ownbestenemy about the problem of funding this concept. The money has to come from somewhere. The only way I can see it working is a much
higher income tax on the job salary -- something like 50% tax. For the lower paid people, they would still come out ahead with the added 24K per year
automatic income. If you have a job that pays 48K/year, you would pay 24K in tax, but you get the 24K from the government. That's a wash for the
government, but the individual actually comes out ahead, compared to our existing tax system. You make 48K, you keep 48K - sounds great. If you have
a job making 300K, you would have to pay 150K in taxes. With the 24K, that leaves you with 174K net income. That's probably a wash for the
individual, compared to the old tax system. But the higher paid people will be worse off, I think. If you have a job making 500K, and you pay 250K of
that as tax, you only get a total of 274K (250 plus the 24K). Now, you're starting to suffer compared to the old tax system. The more you make, the
worse off you'll be. Maybe some kind of reverse percentage system would work, like the higher your salary, the lower your tax percentage. You pay 50%
income tax on salaries up to a certain amount, then you gradually lower the percentage, the higher salary you make. So, someone who makes 2 million
would pay something like 30% tax. That should keep everyone happy at doing better or the same as they were before. But would that tax system be enough
to fund this?
The other issue I see is - all those menial labor jobs that no one really wants to do, but is currently forced to in order to pay basic bills. Jobs
like digging ditches and cleaning public toilets. Under this new system, those people would probably rather be doing something else, and they could
afford to. So who will dig our ditches, flip our burgers, sack our groceries and clean our public toilets?