this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2025
143 points (94.4% liked)

Asklemmy

45342 readers
910 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Just wanted to prove that political diversity ain't dead. Remember, don't downvote for disagreements.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Yeah, there's a lot of technicalities involved. Like, do you tax the companies directly, or rather the billionaires owning the companies?

My proposal so far is: Every person who has citizenship has to pay 3% of their total wealth off as wealth tax annually. Which makes sense because if they invest in stock, that stock likely goes up by more than 3% annually (after adjusting for inflation). So they don't even have to lift a finger to pay off that wealth tax. (Excluding a tax-free amount of $1 million). That would fund surprisingly much. I did some preliminary math, and in germany, such a wealth tax alone would provide every person with citizenship with approximately $120 /month.

Which is just a small support. UBI doesn't necessarily need to jump from 0 to 100%, maybe it's easier to introduce it slowly and then increase the value.

If i may ask: what makes you against UBI on some days?