this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2026
1164 points (98.2% liked)
Anarchism
2754 readers
39 users here now
Discuss anarchist praxis and philosophy. Don't take yourselves too seriously.
Other anarchist comms
- !anarchism@slrpnk.net
- !anarchism@lemmy.blahaj.zone
- !anarchism@hexbear.net
- !anarchism@lemmy.ml
- !anarchism101@lemmy.ca
- !flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm a big fan of the concept of an universal basic income. Where everyone gets ~1000€ every month from the government. For children, the parents get the money.
And I mean everyone. Every legal resident. Including billionaires.
To finance it I would tax both income and capital gains at ~50%. From the very first € you earn.
The net tax load on most people would not actually change much. But it completely gets rid of situations where if people work more, loose their benefits and end up with less.
1000€ should be just about enough to life a frugal lifestyle. A flat with a partner or flatmate in a small town. Produce to cook a flexitarian diet. A public transport pass and a bicycle. A Samsung Galaxy A17 with an internet plan. And all those other real necessities of life.
If people want luxuries, they will still have to work. Someone still has to produce those consumables after all. But everyone should be able to get all of their basic necessities covered.
Im already taxed like 20% in the US and see nothing for it. May as well do 50 and actualy get something of value for society
it's a good idea but it requires that costs don't adapt. that 800€ apartment you wanted? well since you're already getting a subsidy it's now 1600€. after all, if you discount the subsidy it's cheaper!
Exactly. What's to keep the sellers from just jacking everything up?
College was expensive, but affordable, until the government made it easier to get student loans. Colleges responded by wildly jacking up their prices, and now you literally have to voluntarily take on a lifetime of debt to get a college degree for a job that probably won't cover the cost of your loan. And what did the government do? They went right along with it, and demand repayment before anything else.
They recently started a benefit program with Medicare that gives you some money each month to buy health related items in drugstores and such, and they responded by jacking up the prices in Walgreens and CVS.
I'm all for UBI as well, but it has to comes with price controls so the corporate parasites don't just take it all. UBI Gouging has to be a harshly enforced crime.
What we need is to jail people who do exploitive shit like this. Just like any other harmful acticity we jail people for.
Or maybe jusr, OP's 50% tax deal ramps up the more acxumulated wealth and property you have. Tonstrongly discourage that practice. Like sure, you exploited your rent holdings and you are a ten millionaire. But now we are taxing you at 100% so we can bump people's UBI subsidy up enough to account for your exploitation.
Good job, you accomplished nothing in the end.
We can't jail them without a law that makes it illegal.
And if we introduce rent control, we need to replace it with other incentives to build new apartment buildings. Ideally ones that create a slight oversupply of housing. Otherwise, in a decade or so, you get cheap rent but tons of homeless people because the supply is insufficient.
The incentive is that its what is good for society and good for everyone. The ince tive is doing good. Because people need places to live.
Needs of the many vs needs of the few and all that.
Laws can be made. Laws are all made in the first place.
Building apartments currently cost about a quarter million per unit. Plus interest on the mortgage. Most potential landlords don't just have millions in liquid funds.
Nobody will be taking out loans like that if they won't even earn their investment back if everything goes to plan.
well that's a uniquely us problem which doesn't really apply to the rest of the world.
I don't doubt that. In America, our government encourages the Sociopathic Oligarchs to exploit us. That's why they love it so much here.
Yes, it definitely has to be recalculated frequently. If it doesn't, it will be about as useful as the US minimum wage after some time.
But as I said, most people wouldn't have significantly more or less money than they do today. At least I carefully calculated those numbers so that most people would have pretty much the same, for Germany in 2019. So I don't really expect prices to go up drastically.
It's not that people suddenly have 1000€ extra. Either their unemployment benefits get replaced by that UBI, or they now have to pay an extra 1000€ in taxes.
it's not even supposed to be an "extra 1000€ in taxes", it would just be gradually eaten up by taxes the more you make.
the big problem is, a lot of people on long-term sick pay who are not allowed to work would get less from this system. there needs to be something to deal with that.
Currently the tax rate is progressive. In the future it wouldn't be anymore. But because those progressive taxes only apply to income over a certain threshold, people with lower incomes would profit more.
This system would not replace social security. If you get a pension due to age or sickness or in your first year of unemployment, you would still be covered by your mandatory insurance. Same with your mandatory health insurance. And you'd still have to pay for it on top of your taxes. The employee and the employer pay 20% of the gross income each.
it's my understanding that the system would replace social security. the savings from slimming down the systems responsible for payout would be part of what made the entire thing possible.
It would replace long term unemployment benefits. And minimum pension. The benefits that are paid directly by the government, not mandatory insurance.
It would be mostly financed through getting rid of progressive taxes.
isn't a progressive taxation system meant to ramp up as you earn more, not down? that would lose you money by getting rid of it.
What do you mean?
For example if you earn 277k that's currently taxed 42%. Getting rid of the progressive tax, it would be taxed 45%.
It's not enough, to finance a sufficiently high UBI but it's definitely an increase.
if i specifically were to earn 277k that's currently taxed 48% in the system we use, and if we got rid of our progressive brackets it would be taxed at 33%. but we're not talking about specific countries, we're talking about removing progressive taxation from a hypothetical economy to replace in with... what? flat rates?
progressive taxation is an umbrella term for a bunch of systems all over the world. the only thing in common is that as income goes up, so does the percentage of it you need to pay in taxes.
Flat rates at the maximum tax rate and an UBI that replaces the progressive tax system. Where is that 33% coming from? That clearly isn't the maximum tax rate in your jurisdiction.
I'm aware that there are different progressive tax systems. But to my knowledge they all have a maximum tax rate. One that's, by definition, higher than any other possible tax rate
no it's the normal level. the 48% is the maximum.
i don't see why you can't have ubi and progressive taxation at the same time. you can tailor the curve to work with the extra money. you can even set the maximum rate at 100% for people who earn more than, say, 10M a year.
It would just be pretty redundant. And a flat tax rate is a lot more transparent
it also tends to hit poor people harder.
And a UBI helps poor people more. If you want to help them even more still, just raise the UBI
Which is why UBI should be coupled with UBS (universal basic services). In this context, at the very least there would exist also a rental board (like Quebec's existing Regie du Logement). If you're more ambitious, housing would be a universal service and taken out of the market altogether. And don't forget that that 1600E income of the landlord would be also taxed.
More generally: https://ubiadvocates.org/inflation-and-ubi-separating-fact-from-fiction/
Billionaires should not exist and their existence should not be tolerated.
Yes. If someone has a million times the median wealth, there's something wrong with the system.
But how is that relevant here?
That statement is just about how there's no means test.
People need cars to live where I am. There is no public transportation and cycling is far too dangerous, no one even tries. They give up their homes before their cars. Tons of people living on UBI would be living in their cars.
In a political climate where you could actually implement UBI, you would also be able to implement walkability policies.
Also, e-bikes. E-bikes is where it's at.
Yeah e bikes aren't even allowed on the roads for now. The walkability problem is a matter of the billions and billions of dollars it would take to essentially redo every road in the county. Some zoning changes could help a little but we're generations of work away from being walkable
The trick is to implement temporary measures at first. Like turning a lane into a sidewalk and a bike lane, by placing planters. Then when it's time to renew the road anyway, the status quo only has one car lane in each direction.
In that situation there will be both the money and the will to build a grade separated sidewalk and bike lane.
Our roads are already only one lane in each direction. No shoulder, no sidewalks. Sometimes they're marked as narrow and only one car can get through at a time. It's a ditch in the side, not grass. People get killed on these roads all the time. Widening the roads means imminent domain land seizures, adding underground waste water runoff capability, and adding all of the infrastructure you're describing. I won't see 5% if our roads fixed before I die.
That should be the case every 200m or so, if there is no sidewalk. It's really effective at slowing drivers down.
With a speed limit of around 10km/h streets like that can be safe and pretty comfortable for pedestrians
These are roads big trucks drive at 100kkmh on all day long. Hilly roads with blind curves. No one goes anywhere without a car here.
I'm being speculative, right?
Yeah not in rural areas, we need cars.
Now, im all for banning bro trucks and crossovers over 3500 lbs. If you cant get by with a miata or a wagon, you have to get a special license for a bigger vehicle and pay more because youre damaging the road and endangering others 10x more in your 10,000lb f350 diesel.
Housing in rural areas is usually dirt cheap.
So you can probably afford a car and a rural apartment for the cost of a transit pass and apartment in a well-connected town
Totally. And for me thats better, I like having a house and garage with space. I dont mind not being in a busy city center because I feel caged in, and all there is to do in those places us go to bars all the time, something ive never been into.
I go downtown to the arcade sometimes or out to the fitness center/rock wall by my place and thats plenty for me. Sometimes go to the local theater plays and movies. All a 10 minute drive
Rural areas, sure. Suburban and urban where the majority of humans live, no.
yeah, reminder that even the USA has an 80% urban population! (below is per-state percentages)
Half the US population lives in these counties:
And
UBI is a billionaire slop ideology to defuse political tension with gifts, accelerating capital accumulation in the process. It places the 99% as clients of a power-holding elite. It'll produce a few generations of hapless losers, who'll be utterly incapable of defending their rights when they eventually roll a cruel patron that decides to take it away.
Statistically, university students, part-time employees and non working people in single income households are the most active in protests. They have the time, the means and the education to do so.
Wage slaves don't have time. And if they unionize they might get fired and not have anything anymore. So they don't.
A UBI means everyone is capable of protesting. Why would that produce hapless loosers?
Exactly. UBI is a reactionary socialist concept. It is a bandage for a bigger issue, meant to appease so as not to incite revolt. However the real issue is a commodity economy / money. Its really hard to get the masses on board with abolishing that without global revolution.
Then buy a different 200€ phone?
Iphone SE3 is like $130 refurbished, if you're into iPhones. My partner has it and they have no complaints.