> Then remove the word “tax” from my point and rephrase it as “only capturing (less than) 37% of the wage”
My problem is that I don't see it as capturing less of the wage, I see it as being granted less of the benefit / social safety net.
When you don't make enough money to support yourself, society kicks and and gives you enough so that you're ok (you meet some defined minimum). As you earn more, you need less support from society to be meet that minimum, so you're given less.
Eventually, you get to the point where you meet the minimum without assistance from society. At that point, the benefit is no longer needed (by the definition of the program).
At no point are the benefits your earnings, and at no point are your earnings being taken away by the less of the benefit. Rather, you're just not being assisted by society anymore because you don't need that assistance.
If the recipient of those benefits can't see that and, instead, sees them as "this is mine and you're taking it away", then I argue that's a problem with recipient. They are wrong. They should be happy the benefit was there for them when they did need it... and that it will be there some someone else when they need it. That is the point of social safety nets.
Now, I get that there's some "emotional attachment" to getting the money and then not getting because (as the recipient sees it) they're working (which is wrong; as noted, they're getting less because they need less, period). As such, reducing the benefits amount by a percentage less than 100% of earned ways helps mitigate those feelings. But at some point, the benefit must go away; it's not UBI. The rate at which it goes away is not going to make everyone happy, no matter what is done (that's the nature of compromise).