I wanted to make sure I wasn't talking to someone who just went off the base headlines without actually looking into the proposal first.

I don't agree with Bernie Sanders' plan. It was obvious to me when I read the first article that he doesn't understand the technology, but the more important thing is that he doesn't seem to have followed the money. The way stocks and services are being traded to inflate some companies while keeping other failing companies solvent is the whole reason this is a bubble. What the proposal doesn't seem to account for (that I've read) is that if this tech doesn't become profitable in a mainstream way the tax payers (who are already very likely to lose savings, retirement investments, and jobs) will still be on the hook for the debt and will actually see no benefit from the short term pump of the stock in these companies.

I voted for Bernie in the primary. I think he and a lot of other politicians are too old for the roles they currently hold. But if I'm honest I don't think this is just about old people not understanding tech. At least, it's not exclusively old people. There are so many people my age and younger who don't understand this tech or the economics and business practices behind it, and they are more than willing to trust it blindly.

I say: UBI is how you break that separation of the people from the resources they need to survive.

I say: UBI is something better. It is an automatic social safety net. It gives every citizen "credibility" that they can make some regular payments reliably.

I say: even $600 per month UBI would give everyone the ability to tell an overbearing boss "no, I'm not doing that."

I say: UBI + flat tax is a fair, progressive tax system which "caps out" at a rate that's fair (equal) for everyone and doesn't tax the poor, it's a negative tax on the poor.

I say: UBI is affordable. At a rate of $600 per month UBI, a US flat tax of roughly 33% would be revenue neutral, providing the $2.5T per year necessary to fund UBI and another $2.5T for incentive programs that used to be called "incentive tax breaks." This would be a modest tax break for the top earners who currently pay 37% on every dollar they earn above their current income. It would represent a tax increase on the wealthy, but they would never be paying more than the 33% flat rate that everyone in the country would pay on every dollar earned.

I say: UBI is overdue. There are 134 government domestic aid programs in the US, each one more byzantinely administered than the next. Most of those could be eliminated, replaced by UBI. Break out my tiniest violin for the bureaucrats who won't be "needs testing program applicants" anymore, they'll get UBI like the rest of us.

I say: only a tiny fraction of the US population would be opposed to UBI if they understood the impact it would truly have on their daily lives. Nobody would need to beg on street corners. Nobody would need to steal to eat. People would still do it, but people doing that with UBI could be short-tracked to the counselling they need to get their lives straightened out so they aren't desparate anymore. Who wants to live in a country with a bunch of desperate people?