The fact that he collected billions (worth of cash and financial instruments) in the first place is the problem. He should have been charging consumers less, and paying his workers more. He never should have accumulated his obscene wealth to begin with.

Perhaps we could do something like saying UBI is paid out annually and only given the day before taxes are due to be paid

AFAIK, taxes are withheld from wages and paid from every paycheck, not once a year.

Self-employed people are required to make quarterly installments, not annual.

The “float” cost is minimal. Indeed, I can eliminate it (and reverse it) merely by claiming the payments came out of the previous tax cycle, rather than the current one. The government constantly owes you 12 months worth of payments, and isnt paying you interest on your money. When you die, your estate receives the remaining 12 payments owed to you.

But the biggest reason to apply it uniformly is, IMO, the social costs. Giving it to everyone, it is an entitlement. It is the dividend the citizen receives for their ownership share of their country.

Giving it only to the poor, it is a charity intended to help people who are unable to support themselves.

They know what causes that now.

post incarceration.

Author of this article is serving a life sentence. He’s been in prison over 15 years so far, and won’t be eligible for parole for another 52 years, at which time he will be 97 years old.

“Post incarceration”, he’ll be mailed to his next of kin in a tiny plastic bag. There is no “rebuilding” of his life after incarceration. This is the rest of his life.

I do think he should be earning at least minimum wage for his work while imprisoned. But, $6.25 of his $7.25/hr wages should be garnished and divided among the estates of his victim(s). If they refuse the money, the state should offer the job to any other prisoner whose victims will actually accept restitution.

I’d go so far as to intercept up to 75% of the funds deposited into his commissary account as victim restitution.

Under the nuclear family approach, children over 18 living with their parents are considered separate families and can qualify independently, regardless of their parents’ income. This raises equity concerns because it may result in disproportionate benefits for high-income families.

In contrast, the economic family definition uses the combined income of all related individuals living in the same household, providing a more comprehensive and equitable basis for assessing eligibility.

So, if my daughter lives in my house, we’re all related, and thus one economic family.

But, if my daughter moves into my neighbor’s house, and their son moves into my house, we’re now four economic families?

How about once a month, we just direct deposit the same amount into the bank account of each and every person over the age of 18?