Some quite simplistic assumptions here. Obviously anyone making more than say, $150K would be taxed around $30K more (5% of US income tax payers). They would be net-net no worse off than before, but wouldn't add to the cost of this.
Most of the burden would fall on even richer people. There aren't many of these, but they make a lot of money.
But UBI would replace a lot of things currently funded mainly by rich people through either tax or philanthropy. Not just the whole welfare bill, lots of healthcare and law enforcement spending, but things like grants for the arts. Artists, musicians, etc would either live off their basic income or only require small payments for things like orchestral performances, commissions. Research where the cost of wages is a significant part of the cost (mathematics rather than rocket science) would enjoy a similar subsidy.
Many rich people spend a lot of time and money trying to either improve society or assuage their guilt for becoming rich in various anti-social ways. It might be somewhat worth it to them to have a society which they feel more positive about, but also have fewer threats to their well-being, such as from crime or populist politics.
You would expect some inflation, but tax receipts/GDP would also rise in line with inflation.
Some things would become much cheaper. For example, lots of people don't particularly want to live in run-down apartments in New Jersey. But they have to, because New York is where the work is. Those people might go and live much more cheaply elsewhere and have reduced housing costs.
The cost of artistic work would plummet, in line with the reduced demands of artists for money. (There are probably
enough people who would want to make video games if they didn't have a day job that you could spend the rest of your life playing video games you enjoy for free.)
There wouldn't necessarily be much increased consumption of many things. If everyone eats dinner everyday, they would probably go on eating one dinner rather than three. If some people can't afford dinner currently, consumption and therefore prices, should rise. But some people not having food seems like a problem we should fix anyway.
Some things definitely would go up in price a lot. Things which have a high cost component of labour, and the people doing that labour don't particularly enjoy it. So you would have to pay people a lot to wait tables, and the cost of restaurants would reflect that. But there still might be lots of people who wanted to be maitre d's or helicopter pilots, at least for part of their lives. The flipside is that if you enjoy cheap food delivery, restaurants and taxis, you are currently being subsidized by welfare and other social care services which allow people to do crappy jobs for less money than it takes to live.
a) The current players would refuse to cooperate. Making web services accessible to end-users but impossible to scrape efficiently is a solved problem.
b) You're hungry and tired and you're about to spend $30-$50 on takeout food rather than cook yourself. Do you care that much about a $.50-$1 saving that you search for food search engines on your meta food search engine search engine?
In insurance, a market where people are much more price conscious, there are several different price comparison sites which all aggregate slightly different subsets of the insurers.
No, the market will determine an efficient wage, not a fair one.
The efficient wage often means the cost of someone who doesn't pay tax or insurance, sleeps in his car or in a dosshouse, parks on residential streets near airports, littering them with food wrappers and bottles of piss, and takes coke, meth or qat to work longer shifts in the undermaintained car he rents from the mafia. In this case medallions are a (bad) way of enforcing all the other types of regulation which are necessary.
#deleteuber was extremely successful at promoting change at Uber. Travis Kalanick was asked to leave as CEO and lost control over two board seats. There was a struggle for control between two groups of external investors, the ones who wanted to carry on as before and the ones who wanted root-and-branch change, and the latter won. And, although Uber is privately held, its consensus market value is definitely down a lot since the campaign.
Most of the burden would fall on even richer people. There aren't many of these, but they make a lot of money.
But UBI would replace a lot of things currently funded mainly by rich people through either tax or philanthropy. Not just the whole welfare bill, lots of healthcare and law enforcement spending, but things like grants for the arts. Artists, musicians, etc would either live off their basic income or only require small payments for things like orchestral performances, commissions. Research where the cost of wages is a significant part of the cost (mathematics rather than rocket science) would enjoy a similar subsidy.
Many rich people spend a lot of time and money trying to either improve society or assuage their guilt for becoming rich in various anti-social ways. It might be somewhat worth it to them to have a society which they feel more positive about, but also have fewer threats to their well-being, such as from crime or populist politics.
You would expect some inflation, but tax receipts/GDP would also rise in line with inflation.
Some things would become much cheaper. For example, lots of people don't particularly want to live in run-down apartments in New Jersey. But they have to, because New York is where the work is. Those people might go and live much more cheaply elsewhere and have reduced housing costs.
The cost of artistic work would plummet, in line with the reduced demands of artists for money. (There are probably enough people who would want to make video games if they didn't have a day job that you could spend the rest of your life playing video games you enjoy for free.)
There wouldn't necessarily be much increased consumption of many things. If everyone eats dinner everyday, they would probably go on eating one dinner rather than three. If some people can't afford dinner currently, consumption and therefore prices, should rise. But some people not having food seems like a problem we should fix anyway.
Some things definitely would go up in price a lot. Things which have a high cost component of labour, and the people doing that labour don't particularly enjoy it. So you would have to pay people a lot to wait tables, and the cost of restaurants would reflect that. But there still might be lots of people who wanted to be maitre d's or helicopter pilots, at least for part of their lives. The flipside is that if you enjoy cheap food delivery, restaurants and taxis, you are currently being subsidized by welfare and other social care services which allow people to do crappy jobs for less money than it takes to live.