Separately, in a way we already have that uneven net for the same work. If you work two jobs you get paid less (net) than one person doing either of your jobs (for that job, not total). That's what's what a progressive tax does.
Its a market distortion that could create all kinds of problems.
You could argue that's discrimination( there are equal pay and equal wages laws around employment).
You would not be allowing immigrants from doing a wide range of jobs that are desirable (and hence pay less) and 'condemn' them to do the worse jobs that pay more. So for example, immigrants will be less represented in arts, journalism, administrative work. Low paying jobs in general will not be living wages without UBI. Think that minimum wage is likely to drop considerable if you have UBI.
It undoubtedly creates an "US vs them" gap measurable in money.
> Separately, in a way we already have that uneven net for the same work. If you work two jobs you get paid less (net) than one person doing either of your jobs (for that job, not total). That's what's what a progressive tax does.
UBI is very likely not going to apply to most workers, maybe minimum wage and down. You dont really need much of a minimum wage if you have an UBI, which means many pleasent low skill jobs would pay very little (clerical work for example). So immigrants would be barred from such jobs without UBI.
Also its true that taxes make 2 people get different net income but that comes from their wealth, not their nationality. Someone with a house and a mortgage might get more income than an immigrant that has nothing. That makes it a regressive tax (the immigrant pays taxes that goes to the richer guy).
Most (all?) western countries tax income, not wealth[1]. Wealth has no impact on income taxes. If I have $1M in the bank go work for minimum wage and earn $10K for the year, I'll get taxed the same as someone with $0 in the bank earning the same $10K. The contrast I was making was someone with two jobs that make $10K each. With a progressive tax structure, each they are making less net at each job than a person working for $10K at either job. That's because the second $10K would be taxed more than the first (okay maybe not at $10K but it's true at $25K to $50K or $50K to $100K...).
> Someone with a house and a mortgage might get more income than an immigrant that has nothing.
Again that makes no sense. A house and a mortgage are expenses. The only impact on your taxes would be deducting the mortgage interest or real estate taxes. They're not increasing income, they're lowering taxable income.
> That makes it a regressive tax (the immigrant pays taxes that goes to the richer guy).
That makes no sense. There's nothing immigrant specific about that. Unless you think all immigrants are renters. Yes interest and real estate tax deductions (and really deductions in general) are regressive in that higher income people who are already paying higher taxes benefit more, but there's nothing unfair about it from a born national v.s. immigrant basis.
Last I checked, immigrants are allowed to buy houses too.
[1]: The one exception to that is taxing real estate but on the whole cash, investments, or even piles of gold are not taxed.
In a world with UBI, I'd be very tempted to pack it in and go do some rewarding, enjoyable manual labor, like farming or forestry or carpentry or improving hiking trails.
