• SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      9 months ago

      Alaska is super progressive on that front. It’s not UBI per se. It’s closer to what the Saudis and some other oil-based countries do.

      The basic argument is that oil, as a natural resource, belongs to Alaskans in common in the same way as air and water does. Oil companies must pay for extracting the resource, and part of that pay is directly remitted to the citizens. I think both Alaska and Alaskans should be getting more than they are, but that’s the general idea and legal justification as I understand it in practice, I believe it comes out to only a few thousand per year per person, but I’m not Alaskan and am open to correction on any of these points. It’s just something I looked into as a UBI supporter myself.

      • query@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        It’s sort of the Libertarian version of the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund, if public income can exist in Libertarianism. Give everyone cash now instead of having a public agency invest it for the future.

        And yeah, it probably should be higher. Per person oil and gas income for the state of Norway was $24 000 last year (at the current exchange rate). Although I haven’t checked per capita oil and gas extraction.

    • pete_the_cat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      No not our military! Then we’ll have nothing to brag about and threaten other countries with! We don’t need to spend money on education or human welfare! We need more guns! More tanks! More jets! More drones!/s

    • GBU_28@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Here’s the thing, there’s no need to cut back on anything, just be more accountable.