well inflation is equivalent to a flat wealth tax that doesn't consider insoluble assets, and is entirely in the hands of the government that imposes the UBI.

"cause increased prices for consumer/essential goods" is what you meant (since buying power is moved to people who are reliant on buying them), but this is a one-time transition to a new equilibrium (so is mitigable by increasing the UBI to account for it), not a constant ever-looming devaluator.

▲

jplusequalt 7 hours ago | parent [-]

True, but again, the other points are more damning.

We're talking about an increased federal budget in the hundreds of billions/trillions to support such a UBI. That will cause a massive increase in taxation on the people who can still find jobs.

To make matters worst, the government in 10-15 years will likely be spending ~25% of it's budget on interest payments alone. Hiking the federal budget up even more sounds like a hard sell.

	▲	LadyCailin 6 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I’m not saying it would be revenue neutral, but a UBI would (or should) eliminate a bunch of various other entitlements. Even social security should be relatively non controversial to get rid of.
	▲	_DeadFred_ 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		You seem to think feeding the population is optional. The current form of government and personal asset accumulation is actually much more optional in the situation. Look at Rome and what it had to do when the system shock of so many slaves disrupted labor. Wild that Roman patricians understood you have to...like...feed society, but modern right wing Americans don't.
	▲	salawat 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		As opposed to dead people because no one is hiring to pay people to participate in a market they've been evicted from?