Universal Basic Income in an AGI Future (opens in new tab)

For the U.S., the time is perhaps already here as people being fired are unable to find employment. It makes sense to tax the $250K or more earners to fund UBI. The cost-benefit analysis of shifting spending revenues from high income earners to low to middle income earners works out in favor of low to middle income earners. That is to say, if more people have more money to spend in the economy, you’ll see better prospects for overall GDP growth versus if only high income earners are spending.

Relying on high income earners to sustain the economy almost always results in a bubble burst because of how their resources are spent. The fundamental question is really what are people selling and buying. Low to middle income earners buy goods and services which serve a broader swath of the market (high volume, low value), while high income earners lean more towards goods and services which are found in niche spheres (low volume, high value).

Even if the U.S. just taxes the H1Bs to fund UBI for citizens, it could offset a lot of economic damage experienced by local populations due to globalization. Perhaps the H1B tax should “stick” for at least 10 years post-naturalization to balance lost revenues from the naturalization process. Moreover, it might even make sense to tax jobs offshoring to pay for UBI. The market is addicted to itself, so it will find some way to thrive, regardless.