> If UBI is funded by taxes it's not a UBI (some people will end up giving back more in taxes than they "receive" in UBI, so it's net negative for them)
This is plainly nonsense. UBI means only one thing: you get a check for a certain guaranteed amount no matter what. It doesn't mean that the amount on this check is necessarily smaller than other taxes due. And yes, it does mean that, in effect, some people will end up paying into the system while others will receive money from it. That is precisely the intent - to provide a baseline for the lower end of the income spectrum such that nobody is ever below it.
That isn't how UBI is advertised. If it was, it'd be no different to existing welfare systems and there'd be no need for any such name as UBI.
Of course, you can play silly accounting games in which you take $100 and give back $10 and say "look, you now have $10 in guaranteed income", but such word games have no merit and can't justify the claim to change to the economic system.
This is exactly how it's advertised. I have no idea where you've got the notion that UBI is about printing an extra $X for everyone, because it was never about that.
It was always about that, but I'm very curious what you think it's about. Because taxing someone $X and then giving them some of that money back as $Y is just word games - it's exactly the same as taking $(X - Y). We have that system already. If UBI just means higher welfare spending then call it that and stop running pointless trials.
This is plainly nonsense. UBI means only one thing: you get a check for a certain guaranteed amount no matter what. It doesn't mean that the amount on this check is necessarily smaller than other taxes due. And yes, it does mean that, in effect, some people will end up paying into the system while others will receive money from it. That is precisely the intent - to provide a baseline for the lower end of the income spectrum such that nobody is ever below it.