knockoph on Nostr: I have take on this, but it doesn't follow the anarcho capitalist ideal of no state ...
I have take on this, but it doesn't follow the anarcho capitalist ideal of no state at all, and it also doesn't follow the conservative ideal that everyone is capable of working or needs a functioning family to survive.
So for this thought experiment let's assume we live on a Bitcoin standard, a state exists and it is capable of collecting taxes in Bitcoin.
Now let's assume the state collects 5% income tax (could be any other number, did not calculate this). Every month all the collected money is divided by the number of citizens and redistributed equally as UBI. It means some people contribute more than they get back through UBI, but everybody receives it. This would have the benefit, that nobody starts from zero at the beginning of the month. If UBI is too low to survive, it encourages people to work more, especially those that are capable of working. Furthermore they always earn on top of their UBI, such that there is always the incentive to add income on top to have more money than the UBI. And 5% of this additional income goes back into the UBI. This would be a UBI with a strong incentive to earn on top, especially if the UBI declines due to declining productivity. Basically, there would not be a guarantee to receive a certain amount. It would either find an equilibrium, where UBI is as high as required to survive at a minimum, or it would produce even more UBI than most people actually need. At the same time it would lift those from zero that are not capable to survive on their own. It would also be more privacy friendly than the current social systems, where people who receive benefits have to show all their financial activity and assets to be eligible.
It is basically a question of how society wants to organize itself on top of Bitcoin. And again, it is just a thought experiment, ready to be roasted.
So for this thought experiment let's assume we live on a Bitcoin standard, a state exists and it is capable of collecting taxes in Bitcoin.
Now let's assume the state collects 5% income tax (could be any other number, did not calculate this). Every month all the collected money is divided by the number of citizens and redistributed equally as UBI. It means some people contribute more than they get back through UBI, but everybody receives it. This would have the benefit, that nobody starts from zero at the beginning of the month. If UBI is too low to survive, it encourages people to work more, especially those that are capable of working. Furthermore they always earn on top of their UBI, such that there is always the incentive to add income on top to have more money than the UBI. And 5% of this additional income goes back into the UBI. This would be a UBI with a strong incentive to earn on top, especially if the UBI declines due to declining productivity. Basically, there would not be a guarantee to receive a certain amount. It would either find an equilibrium, where UBI is as high as required to survive at a minimum, or it would produce even more UBI than most people actually need. At the same time it would lift those from zero that are not capable to survive on their own. It would also be more privacy friendly than the current social systems, where people who receive benefits have to show all their financial activity and assets to be eligible.
It is basically a question of how society wants to organize itself on top of Bitcoin. And again, it is just a thought experiment, ready to be roasted.