An issue with that approach is that you may end up giving more $$ than the person could earn from any job they could take, effectively forcing them to stay jobless
If I get $400 in UBI and $500 in salary, the only loss is that I am paying higher taxes on the $500 than I would be in a non-UBI society.
This behaviour also results in the fact that, even though taxes are higher, those in the lower revenue rungs still come out ahead in an UBI society vs a non-UBI scenario.
[1] There is a minor incentive caused by the decreasing utility value of money: The first $100 you earn are much more valuable than the $100 you earn on top of $5000. UBI moves the salary revenue a bit up in this scale, thus making it less valuable.
We can still have food stamp programs that allow people to spend as they please, but the guaranteed floor ensures literally no one need go hungry.
Sticking to basics keeps the costs far lower than trying to subsidize processed foods, and the extent we susbsidize our farmers also subsidizes the program.
Such as: - Who decides the list of goods? - Who provides them? - Who delivers them?
Ex: Pizza as a vegetable.
Sure, you'll have people make shit decisions - but part of the point (IMHO) of UBI is that a shit decision this month doesn't have to screw you next month.
My brother also always points out that "shrinkage" (from retail) is a really good concept to apply to welfare programs: The cost to 100% anything far outweighs the benefit to 100% that.
It would be constantly attacked for not providing "healthy" options like fresh fruit, organic flour, more variety and whatnot.
I just wish we could do stuff like this. Same with housing, provide budget accommodations in low cost areas and you'll be accused of creating ghettos and modern day internment camps. So we spend much more to subsidize housing in the highest cost, most desirable regions, leaving far too many without anything.
Any kind of goods/services delivery removes people's capacity to make their own choices.
If one is against this idea, then ask why any investor of money into a company should get money back from it when they did no explicit work for it? If you reject the universal dividend idea, then one, to be consistent, should really reject the idea of investment. Good luck with such an economy.
So instead of the demeaning UBI narrative that people need money to survive, it suggests an uplifting narrative that we are all valuable and that we all get a bit of something back to reflect our useful existence as well as a little something in order to "invest" it into the next act of creating something. It captures the idea that our society is built not just economically and bureaucratically, but also socially. That having neighbors, coworkers, customers is important for economies and governments. These are hard things to support with metrics, etc, so we just decide on a basic level and give it out.
What that level is would be debatable, just as how much an investor makes from dividends or buybacks, is debatable. Since I think the ability to walk away is the most important aspect of freedom and that freedom is an important value, I would want a higher amount than you suggest. But a lower amount would work as well with that label.
Spit ball: What is a mediocre growth return rate? Maybe 4%? So tax wealth at 4% and distribute it across all the citizens. Anyone who can use their wealth to generate more than 4% will see it grow (these are the successful people) while those who cannot will see their wealth dwindle and would be the typical case. This also addresses the wealth inequality issue. Incidentally, at 100 trillion dollars of wealth, this leads to 4 trillion to distribute across the population of say about 330 million leading to about 12,000 dollars a year or so.
This also suggests that the dividend should be applied equally to all people which includes, especially so, children. This is an investment in human existence and a celebration of all of us. Note that this also addresses the concern of a single mother of 3 who would get 12k for herself, 12k for each of her children leading to 48k to take care of her kids, keep them out of poverty, keep them nourished, loved, protected, not abused, etc. It also makes even an unemployed spouse economically useful to have around, but it also enables one to economically walk away from an abusive spouse. This would also lead to the ability to eliminate forced public schooling and much more organic growth of true individuals, free of labels, bullies, adult abuse, and indoctrination.
One might view it as almost a Universal Investment for the young, Universal Income for the middle aged, and a Universal Dividend for the old.
Because they did. They put their capital (that they worked for, or their ancestors did) at risk so someone could use it. It's only fair that they get a cut.
If fairness is a concern, one would seem to be led, at the very least, to want to wipe the slate clean for every new individual; no transference of wealth or privilege from one generation to the next. Only self-made people, self-made by above board behaviors, nothing morally or legally questionable. Then sure.
Since that has nothing to do with the actual distribution of wealth in the world, saying it is only fair seems an inadequate justification.
In general, I have always thought the idea is that successful investors can invest successfully and so giving new capital to such individuals leads to further successful invested in ventures, enriching society further.
The same thing goes here. Living individuals have been successful at living, which usually requires great effort and skill by both the individual and the community, and so why not give a bit back to further that journey, a journey that enriches us all.
I completely disagree with you about fairness though. I'm working so my kids can have a comfortable life, that's almost the only point of the work I'm doing, and it's not fair to not let me work for them.