Comment by AnimalMuppet a day ago
I don't think there has been a trial that shows what happens if you do it, permanently, for everyone, and raise taxes enough to pay for it.
I don't agree with dgfitz's dogmatic "it will not work". But I don't agree with your claim, either. There has never been a city- or state-wide trial, let alone a national one, that increased taxes to pay for it. So under actual conditions, no, we don't have evidence that it works.
I agree there have not been any permanent trials (wouldn't be a trial, then). However, we were discussing whether "it works" or not, in terms of the impact on society (i.e., "nobody will work anymore!", etc.), not how it would be paid for, which is an important but separate question.
Raising taxes is only one mechanism. There's also reduced spending (the defense budget is now approaching $1T).
Its seems there are two opposite arguments taking place: 1) AI will eventually displace a very large number of jobs and there are no ideas emerging as to what new industries will appear to provide jobs for the displaced (and that is because the new industry would have to be something that AI is incapable of doing cost-effectively, and we only need so many barbers), and 2) people who are capable of working but do not work should not be receiving compensation from the government.
I honestly don't know if UBI is the solution (I prefer means-tested BI rather than UBI but I concede that means-tested is problematic). But there had better be a solution, because 1) above is inevitable (probably not in the next 5 years, but in the next 25 years, certainly).
Where is even the theoretical argument that raising taxes in a progressive manner to pay for it will adversely effect the way it works?