Also it wouldn't have to come from other people's taxes, but from kinda devaluing the money making stuff more expensive
Same shit, different sack. If you don't understand why these are exactly the same shit, you've got more reading (or thinking) to do.
Okay, maybe that was a bit harsh, but here a few differences from socialism:
- People don't have like food stamps or a different kind of money. (in some systems, like Cuba)
- Neither the government nor the workers govern companies.
- Money doesn't come from taxes that only rich people have to pay and so the system doesn't rest on their shoulders.
- People will get a fixed amount of money, so a free market and value of stuff can adapt to it (there are no free markets in socialism)
- The money will in the end go to working people
- You won't be able to afford any kind of luxury, if 1000 USD are worth even less
- Pays would therefor (I guess) be higher, so you won't have this "I'd earn as much, if I didn't work" thing
- It isn't like a tax, because it's not bound to some specific thing (doesn't matter how rich you are)
- It is no traditional minimal income, because it is added and doesn't depend on anything and isn't just for poor people/people who don't work
I know, it has an effect and if you really read what I wrote you think that it will act like a tax, because the devaluation is bigger for working people, right? Do you really think the effect would be the same even though the gap between working and none working people is probably even higher than now?
Also do you think it would maybe still be a better solution to have it like that rather to have this complex welfare system every country has now?
If you still think it's exactly the same would you mind telling me why you think it is?