1000 in LA is not the same as 1000 in Texas. 1000 in LA pays like 1/2 your rent where 1000 in Texas could cover rent and utilities with some left over. Will the rent in Texas rise as a result? Likely, but the amount of actual inflation would have to be quite significant. My parents have a combined income of about 40k after taxes and have paid off their house. They would have an income of 64k with the freedom dividend. In their case everything they spend money on would have to increase in cost by over 50% to start "costing" them more. If you live in a lower cost area of the U.S. the freedom dividend is 100% in your interest, at least fiscally, if you earn about the median American wage of 35k. If you are near the top or receive more than 1000 already then it is not.
I've thought it through more than you apparently. My first example was to show that 1000 dollars has different purchasing power in different parts of our country already. The more rural parts of our country are bleeding into the cities partially because of a lack of capital and opportunity. Any measure that slows or even reverses this trend should be supported. So what if decimal places move if it manifests a real change in behavior? Higher and higher concentration of wealth, opportunity, and population into a smaller area is not a desirable future for a country like the U.S. that is uniquely wealthy in the sheer size of the territory.
I view the issue as one of health. Living in or commuting to a larger city carries a psychological cost for the vast majority who do so. Their primary reason for paying the cost is the price of opportunity. If we can shift some of the opportunity out of our cities at the cost of inflation we can improve our collective health.
Finally, the full cost of the freedom dividend on the consumer end would be about a 10% added tax. If a corporation wanted to (read definitely will) put all the cost on the consumer it would translate to a 10% increase in the price of that good. However, I don't think it would reach 10% because of a natural higher volume of sales generated by more disposable income. This isn't going to magically change the vast majority of Americans who spend all their disposable income and live paycheck to paycheck. We have them to thank that inflation would stay rather low.
But referring back to the example of my parents the amount you would have to earn to be losing on this deal would be somewhere north of 120k per person. A figure that is common only in the most expensive parts of our country.
Any discussion or criticism beyond U R wrong and a cuck would be appreciated.
I love his idea for universal basic income; lets give everyone a thousand bucks a month. You might as well move all our decimal places over a couple spots. You give everyone a thousand, you effectively give nobody a thousand.