I'm not an economist but I'm wondering what do you think would happen to technology research and science and such if the rich were taxed this way? Would the economy shift more towards what the poor buy, rather than shift to what the rich spend their money on? Or does it all grow together or equalize in some way?
Of course it would shift - the financial incentives to start business come from uncountable factors, but one of the most significant has to be simply "where the money is".
UBI, by its design, creates incredible demand for a standard of living equal to it. Even if your margins are razor thin, the market is still very desirable because the revenue is some of the most reliable money there is (government money) and it is insanely consistent (people will need housing at the minimum level).
Which should terrify you. Any shift in real market demand for necessities post-UBI just represents how many people were impoverished without it, who did not have their base needs fulfilled and how much human rather than fiscal demand for needs was going unmet. The kind of progressive taxes necessary to redistribute so much money on so regular a basis would of course be significant for the higher earners, which would of course significantly curtail their economic influence, because while innovation is not zero sum, the annual allocation of finite resources is distributed in accordance with capital allocation to it - and that of course includes the spending habits of the poor.
It is a simple reality of markets that the more money you have the louder your demands are heard. So if you take from the rich and give to the poor, their relative voices change, but everyone grows together insofar as progress is always being made somewhere.
