So what? This is about EVERYONE getting $1k/month, right? As in $1k NET. The Universal part of UBI. But $1k minus $1k or MORE in taxes for an individual isn’t $1k a month. So much for universal. And if you insist on the U being for Unconditional, well you need universality in order for unconditional and vice versa. Giving $1k/month with one hand only to take it with the other is not unconditional UBI…because there are conditions in place that destroy the universality of the program for all.
Second, so you think it is ok to use government as a robber baron simply to redistribute your money to someone else(s)? If so, good luck getting support for UBI from those who Robin Hood will rob. They will fight it…and even if it passes, they will continually put pressure on it to be gradually cut down just like what is done for welfare spending as we know it, today.
And yes, UBI will need their support in order for it to be passed and still resemble actual UBI afterwards. Specific trade-off example: The conservatives ill insist that all other welfare spending (Section 8 housing, food stamps, etc.) be abolished and their funding redirected into the UBI. This is the original proposals for UBI, btw. But the Left will fight tooth and nail over that as they see this as a means to expand the welfare state, not simplify it. Esp since letting go all those programs’ bureaucrats is a mortal threat to the Democrat’s de facto political patronage operations those bureaucracies produced and maintained in return for votes.
Whereas with Social Security, that was a program paid for by the middle class for the middle class. No Robin Hood there. FDR was very careful to do that (by putting the contribution cap in there) despite the howls from his New Deal advisors to the contrary. And the result: The upper class/wealthy never really went after SS because it was never used as a wealth redistribution threat against them. Brilliant strategy on FDR’s part.