The equitability of a basic income is not its main selling point, as I see it; in other words it is not necessary that it be equitable according to some specific conception in order for a basic income to provide value to society as a whole. The selling points are, as I see them:
- There are now more people spending money because they have disposable income. This is good for businesses.
- There is added incentive to work, because one does not lose income by starting a job.
- The people being made redundant by automation are given a cushion that will help as they figure out how to become economically relevant again. This is good for everyone, because there are fewer families forced out onto the streets, etc.
- There is, potentially, less of a bureaucracy to manage the distribution of existing welfare programs, assuming existing programs can be consolidated into the new basic income scheme. This is an attractive point for conservatives and libertarians.
There's no need for equitability here, although that's also something that is desirable within bounds. But I think few millionaires and billionaires will find a significant decrease in their standard of living if they have to pay more into the pot than they receive. Also keep in mind that the billionaires are billionaires because society provides a framework for them to accumulate and retain the capital that they have; for this reason they have an implicit debt and obligation to society.
Equitability is not absolutely necessary, but it is a great selling point.
With a scheme like this, one would replace a system full of loopholes (for the rich) and handouts (for the poor) with a simple flat system.
Everybody gets $x/yr, and everybody pays y% in taxes on all income after that (not just earned income). No deductions, no credits, no loopholes, no welfare state (other than the UBI).
- There are now more people spending money because they have disposable income. This is good for businesses.
- There is added incentive to work, because one does not lose income by starting a job.
- The people being made redundant by automation are given a cushion that will help as they figure out how to become economically relevant again. This is good for everyone, because there are fewer families forced out onto the streets, etc.
- There is, potentially, less of a bureaucracy to manage the distribution of existing welfare programs, assuming existing programs can be consolidated into the new basic income scheme. This is an attractive point for conservatives and libertarians.
There's no need for equitability here, although that's also something that is desirable within bounds. But I think few millionaires and billionaires will find a significant decrease in their standard of living if they have to pay more into the pot than they receive. Also keep in mind that the billionaires are billionaires because society provides a framework for them to accumulate and retain the capital that they have; for this reason they have an implicit debt and obligation to society.