Thanks! for that.
Of course you mean those making 49K will end up with 74K, & those making 51K will end up with 51K.
My UBI scheme has two fundamental aims: first, to end poverty; & second, to change the way we work, & think about work.
That’s why it has to be combined with something like my FHW-for-UNBJs/eco-jobs scheme. (And universal free healthcare, & free public education through higher ed….)
Your point, however, about the apparent anomaly that would result from giving a UBI stipend to those making slightly less than 50K but not giving a UBI stipend to those making slightly more than 50K, is well-taken.
So I’ve now added some details to my UBI plan in order to remove that apparent anomaly, using an elegant idea borrowed from the UBI pilot program that the Ontario provincial government is implementing during summer 2017, about systematically scaling back the total UBI of any recipient in inverse proportion to the amount of income he or she earns over the standard UBI amount, by 50 cents for every extra income dollar earned, until the amount of extra income is equal to twice the standard UBI amount, at which point the recipient’s UBI is zero.
But in any case, my view is that the negative income tax approach to UBI, on its own, is fully complicit in the shit jobs system, whereby most people lead lives of quiet desperation.