In case you're serious, the point is redistribution. Abolishing the income tax probably just makes income inequality worse.
If you're against redistribution in general then that's a different discussion, but at a minimum, in societies with great inequality, even the winners don't win if it all goes the route of the French Revolution.
> In case you're serious, the point is redistribution.
That's the statement I'd like to see highlighted bold on every UBI proposal, so that everyone knows exactly what it is about.
Isn't it remarkable that at a time of the French Revolution (which one them by the way?) the society was significantly more equal in terms of their income than it is today? Maybe revolutions are caused by other reasons, like the lack of freedom and not being in control of your own life, for example? Especially when more than half of one's productive life is taken away and redistributed by a taxman.
I think you'll find that to be true in most discussions about UBI, even those backed by conservative economists like Charles Murray.
As for economically conservative discussion about redistribution, I think Greg Mankiw had one of the best summaries of the matter in 2013 "Defending the One Percent"
Ultimately the question of whether to redistribute or not is as normative, just like considering taxes to be inherently immoral. So far societies have enjoyed the former more than the latter, but individuals fall on both sides.
