It’s interesting to read another point of view on this. But for me there’s something slightly off about Altman’s approach:
What I would propose is a model like a company where you get a share in U.S. Inc. And then, instead of getting a fixed fee, you get a percentage of the GDP every year. As the whole country does better, you do better. I think that is how you align everybody. That message you can get a lot of people behind, even people who traditionally hate welfare, hate socialism.
That’s attempting to put an odd capitalist spin on the idea of UBI. It feels (again, to me) like it adds some strings to the concept. It’s would still be income, but it might actually be removing the “basic” and the “universal”. As soon you start using words like “share” and “percentage” you start raising questions about the words “equal” and “unequal”. Does everyone get the same share? Who decides that?
Even so, I’m really curious to read the results of his study after it finishes.