After watching Dr. Trost (@trostparadox) discuss his idea of universal basic income or instead universal basic dividend I have found that it is more probable in the United States to promote the idea of providing income to citizens through a plan of dividend instead of directly receiving an income. The ideas that stuck out most to me within his talk were his portrayal of non-negotiable ideas in order to limit the government and citizens taking advantage of the new possible system. His first point was to emphasize the necessity of requiring the UBD to be enacted as a constitutional amendment instead of as a general policy. This, as Dr. Trost explains, would limit the possibility of politicians changing the policy to benefit their own opinions or interests that would in the end continue to benefit themselves how they currently handle any form of monetary policy. Additionally, he covered how making this an amendment could prevent the government from limiting the citizens in the future by making this universal basic dividend an overall income. If they were allowed to change the policy to make it a generalized income they would, in turn, be limiting the ability of the lower class and the middle class to be able to benefit themselves in station and in support by no longer being able to seek more beneficially paying jobs by using the dividend as a median for economic assistance while job hunting. Dr. Trost also talked about how the UBD would be tied to the previous years' percent of GDP and not to geographical location. While at first I deemed this as unfair, his explanation displayed that doing this would encourage those living in more expensive areas to not live on their UBD but instead get a job or move locations. While that seems like a harsh reality, this idea would encourage the spreading of populations out of highly populated areas and into wider ranges across the United States. This would encourage the mixing of city culture and rural culture but also increase the development of housing markets in areas that were lowly populated because people would have more ability to move. This would also prevent people from trying to move to areas that are already overpopulated because of the higher UBD. Next, Dr. Trost talked about implementing a flat tax to all persons and corporations on all income above UBD payments with a percent specified in the amendment. While a flat tax is usually an idea that I do not support Dr. Trost paired this idea with it limiting the government to have no other taxing authority. Therefore while I still believe a flat tax is more harmful to those of lower-income, it would prevent the implementation of other additional taxes on top of the flat tax that is continually increasing. This would allow those of lower and middle income to have an exact idea of how much they are required to pay in taxes every year therefore they are able to save that money to the side and continue to increase their additional savings without being blindsided. Finally, Dr. Trost talked about eliminating all other welfare programs. This is an idea that I believe has to happen in order for the UBD to be successful. If additional welfare programs were allowed to exist we would potentially place the United States economic system into a slowly increasing decline of success because of the need to fund a universal program and then additional personal welfare programs. The amount of money being distributed to the citizens would eventually be cut into the percent we allot to the government to use for other forms of programs, such as defense, infrastructure, etc., without this specification we could eventually bankrupt America which would be detrimental to all citizens if not to the rest of the world because of the number of imports we purchase. Overall I believe that Dr. Trost's idea for universal basic dividend is a step in the right direction in order to curry support from citizens from all political standings but also the government.