r/UniversalBasicIncome

I’ve been thinking about this and I don’t understand why our definition of being “low income” is so focused on basic survival.

We already acknowledge that people’s standard of living matters in other parts of the law.

For example: child support isn’t simply calculated as “how much money does this parent need to keep the child alive?” A parent’s income can affect how much child support they owe because the child is supposed to benefit from the standard of living their parent(s) can afford.

So clearly we already recognize that money isn’t just about food, shelter, and basic necessities. But when we’re talking about whether an adult is “low income,” suddenly it’s basically: Can you afford food? Can you afford housing? Can you afford basic necessities?

Okay, but what about actually living?

If someone makes $18/hour and after rent, food, transportation, insurance, utilities, etc. they have $50-100 left over, they’re technically surviving.

But they can’t really afford to:

-Go out with friends

-Have hobbies

-Date

-Take a vacation

-Go to concerts

-Buy something they want without stressing

-Build meaningful savings

-Handle an unexpected expense without sinking

And I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say that those things matter to somebody’s overall social standing just as much as the basic physical necessities. I’m not saying the government should give people money for entertainment or luxury. I’m saying there should be a distinction between: “this person can technically survive.” and “ this person has enough money to atleast participate in a moderate reasonable normal life.”

Especially in places like the Bay Area or New York, someone can be above the official federal and state poverty threshold while still having almost or no money left after necessities.

We already acknowledge that that standard of living matters in other areas of the law.

So why don’t we incorporate some reasonable level of quality of life when determining who is actually economically disadvantaged?

It ties into mental health. it’s just as, if not, more important than our physical necessities because without it, everything else crashes.

I believe a specific change should be made to the way the progressive tax system works. My proposal is that federal and state income taxes should only become progressively higher after a person has reached a reasonable income level needed to afford basic living expenses. This baseline could be around $5,000 per month, or $60,000 per year. Under this system, the first $5,000 of monthly income would be taxed at a fixed, relatively low rate, such as 15%. For example, a person earning $2,000 per month would pay $300 in taxes, while a person earning $5,000 per month would pay $750. Once a person’s income exceeds $5,000 per month, the additional income above that threshold could then be taxed progressively at higher rates.

The purpose of this system would be to ensure that people have a reasonable opportunity to meet their basic needs before being subjected to increasingly higher marginal tax rates. Housing, food, transportation, utilities, and other necessities consume a significant portion of a person’s income, and the amount required to afford those necessities varies considerably depending on where someone lives. Someone living in a high-cost area such as the San Francisco Bay Area may face dramatically higher expenses than someone living in a lower-cost area such as Clearlake, California. However, regardless of where someone lives, they still need enough disposable income to maintain a basic standard of living.

I recognize that a universal $5,000 threshold would not provide the same purchasing power everywhere. However, I believe there is value in establishing a simple baseline rather than attempting to calculate every individual’s exact cost of living. The amount that jobs pay is also influenced by the demand for labor and the cost of living in the surrounding area. Higher-cost areas generally require higher wages for many occupations, meaning that a person would still need to qualify for and obtain a job that provides that income. I therefore do not believe that a basic tax floor would automatically cause a massive migration toward high-cost areas simply because the first portion of income is taxed at a lower rate.

The larger principle behind my proposal is that people should be able to help themselves before being expected to contribute increasingly more to society through taxation. Once a person has enough income to reasonably cover their basic needs, additional income represents a greater ability to contribute toward public services and society as a whole. Progressive taxation could therefore begin primarily on income that exceeds this basic living threshold.

I believe this approach could create a healthier society by reducing the financial pressure placed on people who are struggling to afford necessities. When fewer people are constantly worried about whether they can afford housing, food, transportation, and other basic needs, they may have more freedom to pursue education, save money, improve their careers, start businesses, support their communities, and otherwise contribute to society.

In my view, the purpose of taxation should not simply be to collect as much revenue as possible. The tax system should also recognize that people need a reasonable economic foundation before they can fully participate in and contribute to the larger economy. By allowing people to meet their basic needs first and applying progressively higher taxation primarily to income beyond that baseline, society could potentially create a stronger balance between individual economic security and collective responsibility.