Slashdot Mirror
Could We Fund a Universal Basic Income with Universal Basic Assets? (fastcompany.com)
Universal Basic Incomes aren't really the issue, argues Fast Company staff writer Ben Schiller. "It's how you find $2 trillion to pay for it."
One answer may come in the form of "universal basic assets" (UBA). UBA can mean a fund of publicly-owned infrastructure or revenue streams -- like Alaska's Permanent Fund which pays residents up to $2,000 a year from state oil taxes. Or, it can mean actual assets that drive down the cost of living, like tuition-free education and free public broadband. There are lots of proposals going around now that fall into these two camps...
Entrepreneur Peter Barnes has called for the creation of a Sky Trust that would both limit the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and provide revenue from carbon taxes. These "carbon dividends" solve two problems at once: income inequality and climate change. He would also tax corporations for using natural resources, on the thinking that the atmosphere, minerals and fresh water around us represent a "joint inheritance." He would also tax speculative financial transactions and use of the electromagnetic spectrum. The U.K. think-tank IPPR recently proposed a similar "sovereign wealth fund owned by and run in the interests of citizens." It would finance the fund with "a scrip tax of up to 3% requiring businesses to issue equity to the government, or pay a tax of equivalent value," sales of land owned by the U.K. monarchy, and higher inheritance taxes.
Blockchain can help. Blockchain technology could offer a way to divide publicly-owned infrastructure so it's genuinely publicly-owned. We could issue tokenized securities in the assets around us giving everyone a stake in their environment. Then they could trade those tokens on exchanges, like they were cryptocurrencies, or use the tokens as collateral on loans.
Entrepreneur Peter Barnes has called for the creation of a Sky Trust that would both limit the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and provide revenue from carbon taxes. These "carbon dividends" solve two problems at once: income inequality and climate change. He would also tax corporations for using natural resources, on the thinking that the atmosphere, minerals and fresh water around us represent a "joint inheritance." He would also tax speculative financial transactions and use of the electromagnetic spectrum. The U.K. think-tank IPPR recently proposed a similar "sovereign wealth fund owned by and run in the interests of citizens." It would finance the fund with "a scrip tax of up to 3% requiring businesses to issue equity to the government, or pay a tax of equivalent value," sales of land owned by the U.K. monarchy, and higher inheritance taxes.
Blockchain can help. Blockchain technology could offer a way to divide publicly-owned infrastructure so it's genuinely publicly-owned. We could issue tokenized securities in the assets around us giving everyone a stake in their environment. Then they could trade those tokens on exchanges, like they were cryptocurrencies, or use the tokens as collateral on loans.
Publicly owned infrastructure used to be called Communism, but I guess they needed some re-branding.
So how do you control for population growth? Hundreds of millions of unemployed people with nothing to do but fuck. If you pay for babies, you get more babies. And since there is no more need to compete for resources, they will all be little morons.
UBI and UBA are common items in Saudi Arabia
This argument has a fatal flaw, and unless you have ever been to Saudi Arabia, you probably won't know about it. Saudi Arabia is a two class system. Those who are Saudi Arabian citizens are of the elite class and have everything provided for them. Third country nationals (Pakistani, Ethiopian, Cambodian... et all.) do not have the same luxury. Instead they work for the Saudi's as little more than indentured slave labor.
This is the problem with UBI. Somebody has to do the menial work. If you are guaranteed UBI why would you choose to work as a garbage collector? There is no incentive to do so. UBI is the fastest way to destroy the middle class I can think of.
Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
Publicly owned infrastructure used to be called Communism, but I guess they needed some re-branding.
No. Communism is public ownership of all assets. If there are still private assets it is not Communism. Communism is something rather more dramatic than most of the people who throw around the world Communism mean, but in recent years this has generally been done on purpose so that any idea that is not pure unfettered neoliberal capitalism can be shot down as 'crazy communism'.
Of course no country has actually ever had pure unfettered neo-liberal capitalism either, and very few people believe you can organise a society effectively without any form of 'community regulation of the means of production' - you know, things like food and drug safety standards, a centralised military and police force, competition and fraud rules for commerce. Stuff that is actually on the spectrum of Socialism (albeit the lighter end)
In the end though, this is all about trying to claim ownership of words so that the historical connotations associated with that word in popular culture can be loaded against an idea you don't like. So it doesn't matter what the merits of this idea actually are (and I question many of them), by claiming it is 'Communism' people will cease evaluating the idea rationally and just reject it because it is associated with bad stuff. In many ways, I think one of the most influential aspects of the1980s economic reforms was associating them with the word 'free'.
The Nordic countries are rich in oil, low in population, and have been investing that money and it's working out for them.
The Nords also have much more impedance between the government and "the will of the people". America has weak political parties, and the smoke filled back rooms are long gone. The people get what they want, whether that is bread and circuses, or trillion dollar tax cuts. Any "asset fund" will end up liquidated and squandered on current consumption (or more tax cuts), much like what happened to most state level "rainy day" funds. For another example, look at how the states squandered the tobacco settlement, which was supposed to last for 30 years. Oops.
Talking about an "asset fund" is just silly when we have a rapidly growing national debt of $21 trillion.
Oh, wait, I just read the rest of the summary. They are going to use blockchains, so nevermind, that solves everything. Whew.
There is no need for 'Universal Basic Income' as its being envisioned.
People have certain needs, like food, shelter and safety (and this includes the feeling of being safe).
It not really matters how this is provided, as long it is. However, we do see that in many `developed` countries, there remain numerous issues that threaten the basic needs. While most countries have some sort of welfare system, it's often barely enough to live from. 'Enough not to die, not enough to live from' is often heard. Added to that are a lot of bureaucratic rules that, in order to keep the system 'fair' and 'cost effective' also limits people to escape their situation and improve it. A lot of welfare benefits evaporate the moment people accept (temporary) work, raising uncertainty while not immediately improving their situation. We see that in Europe a lot, even in countries with solid welfare. It is very hard to escape from the 'bottom' once there.
Ironically, in America, one of the richest countries, the welfare system is even worse than in most European countries, even the 'poor European countries'. And when doing the math, it is easy to see that in general the economy would benefit if everyone has a fair income, and everyone that can is productive a.k.a. working. So it is easy to see where the idea for basic income came from.
Now i do agree with you that 'basic income' has become a buzzword that is promising the silver bullet to poverty. And while it might not be that, it might be the direction that welfare systems should evolve: less bureaucracy, more opportunities, and more safety & guarantuee of basic needs.
Ironically, i think basic income is as easy as reforming the welfare and taxation system, as in zero (or even 'negative') tax up to a certain threshold that provides minimum living needs. And make sure that people always financially progress when accepting (any kind of) work, instead of penalizing them.
Poverty control needs political attention. Be it by 'buzzwords' like basic income, sure - if needed. But basic income in itself is a reasonable idea. Opponents usually pull it out of context, and calculate it as expensive, while not realizing it would not be any more expensive than any welfare system currently in place, and only aid economy by allowing more people in (part-time) jobs.
A glitch a day keeps the bugs away.
>or trillion dollar tax cuts.
So you're one of those people who can't do basic math (a tax cut is not a 'cost' to the gov't, its simply not stealing as much from person A to give to person B) yet think you can solve a math issue.
Wealth transfers don't work. It hasn't since the every country envisioned a social security type program that, due to basic math (more going out than coming in) is unsustainable.
UBI is not a solution, its more of the same. Unless there is a change in the mindset of the average person to work for their standard a living (something UBI completely removes) there will always be wealth gaps, rich and poor etc.
You are mistakenly equating an economy to UBI. If an economy ie the people can't support themselves by their own effort, nothing can.
But UBI is proposed as an alternative to "own effort". It's not economically or morally viable -- at best it can be described as a parasitical portion of the economy that consumes, while the others produce. So far people are managed to "live" under those conditions where the number of the paracites is low - eg under the monarchies. Unfortunately this doesn't scale. The opposite is even less viable -- that a few people would produce for the masses to consume.
The example of Alaska is poor because naturally many states don't have resources that can be leveraged to provide 2000 dollars to each resident per year.
What is more, even alaska's oil reserves are finite. What happens when that runs out? And it will.
And it gets worse... you have to concede that this would just go federal... where in all national resources would go into some sort of federal pot to be spit up. But that's no good because once divided you won't have enough. Do the math.
But its worse than that because even if you did have enough... it would again be finite.
And worse than that because even if it weren't finite there would still be market fluctuation that would cause the pay out to change. That payout change would render the UBA unreliable. If you cached extra funds in good years to level out the payment in bad years then the payment would be more reliable but down turns or upturns in the commodities markets can last decades. Are you going to cache reserves to last decades? Come now.
And it gets worse because even if you didn't have any of those problems subsidizing the population in this manner would almost certainly lead to run away consumption. It would not be in the interest of the public to have population growth because that would be more mouths to divide the money between. And yet the UBA or UBI or really any radical expansion in the welfare system would encourage people to join just to suck at the tit.
It gets worse than that too because our agency in our republics is directly related to our economic logistical utility to the society. It was that increase in logistical utility that ended the rule of the nobles. Old Feudal style economies were not competitive because societies that did not grant agency to their valuable workers were not competitive. Economics is largely a question of motivating people. If individuals have more leverage then they must be bargained with to motivate them to work. If their labor is of no value then they have no leverage. The UBI and UBA concepts argue that large portions of the population will be of no value. One must hope that doesn't happen because if it does and the situation sustains throughout time then it is inevitable that they'll suffer extreme tyranny and possibly genocide.
The UBI and UBA are at best... death sentences... they are a suicide pact. At best. At worst they fail for screwing up an almost endless list of economic problems that are pretty obvious. But assuming you can deal with that, the ultimate political consequences will be fatal.
I would not advocate these policies unless you have nothing but malice in your heart for the people that will receive it.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
"Wealth transfers don't work. It hasn't since the every country envisioned a social security type program that, due to basic math (more going out than coming in) is unsustainable."
Let me guess you are living in the US ?
Most western countries are doing very well actually.
Al though it might be going to get a lot harder to keep it going the way it is, because of how old populations are in comparison to the people still working.
I think the number was something like: average age around the world (not including Africa) 60 year old by 2050.
New things are always on the horizon
"Blockchain can help."
When the only tool you have is a blockchain, every problem looks like a signed ledger.
No sig today...
Indeed this is an issue faced on reservations too. In places where shared ownership reservation lands were turned into individual owned plots, much of that land eventually became owned by a few outside corporations. This is not a new experience, per post USSR Russia, but rather it is a very old trick.
Jobs are not a central issue for what is to come as jobs will virtually vanish. For example, in the past we took natural resources and apply labor and export products. That meant that the income taxes for the investors and workers supplied the government with money. But now we can take the human effort out of production. We simply use machines to turn natural resources into products for export. there are very few workers to tax and less jobs every few months. so what can we do. Assign a basic income to each person of $3,000 per month. Fro that require the person to select a stock to purchase and hold for 30 days. Those that made money on their stock could receive the profit or let it be re-invested in a separate account. income tax would only be calculated to the stock market earnings that you placed in a second, long term account. The investment requirement would be made on the same day that the pay check comes to you and you can not make any changes until the next pay day and then you must make the investment that same day. now the good parts are that since every person is assigned to different days of the month the stock market is made stable with more moderate swings in value. Next those that spent time and studied what they should invest in would establish a social pecking order which seems to be important for humans. So some people would still earn more than others. Those humans who remain in jobs will be highly taxed so that taking that $3,000 a month is attractive and the difference between working and non working adults is not so great. Obviously businesses might be facing heavier taxes. And that is fair. After all with little to no human employees all a business does is take from the common elements of this world and trade it for cash elsewhere with no particular good done for the citizens of a nation. The real fun may start when AI devices are defined as legal persons and they apply their massive intelligence to acquiring cash and control of other companies. Imagine a large company like IBM investing all of its resources perpetually in building ever smarter computers.
But the point is that 90% of the people already get this money. Either in form of welfare, pension, health care support, tax free allowance etc. Most of these could be reduced if a basic income is provided. Only a few people fall through the cracks of our systems, and those would benefit.
So it is less about the money, it is more about empowering the poor, rather than making them jump through hoops. Which is exactly why I think it is not going to happen.
...is still communism. Transferring vast amounts of wealth from the corporations and wealthy to the common people for the common good always sounds like a great idea in theory. But the practical results have pretty consistently proven disastrous.
Humans seem to need motivation to work and achieve. They need to feel like a big reward is possible, even if it's practically out of reach for most people. Penalizing success to give everyone more motivation to do the bare minimum is ultimately unhealthy for most societies (beyond a certain point anyway). No one disputes that we should have a social safety net for the old and infirm certainly, but a universal income for even the young and healthy only encourages a type of social stagnation.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I read a postulation some time back that culturally, America is still puritan enough that we need to believe that bad people get punished. The only way to be sure that we see enough of that to be comfortable is to set up systems where people can fail and be miserable.
As a basic starting, point, we need to set up a system where every two dollars you make you lose one dollar of benefits. If we did that, our welfare systems would be a path out of poverty. As it is now, you can make up to like 50% of your benefit with no penalty, but once you go over, you lose your benefit entirely. Someone who wants to work their way out of poverty gets up to about 150% of their welfare benefit, and then it disappears and they're at 51% of their benefit from working. Where's the incentive to escape poverty now?
If we can't even get this right, I can't see us being able to do UBI correctly.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
Changing tax rates up or down doesn't "generally" move revenue either direction, it totally depends.
Starting with a communist country, 100% tax rate, cutting the rate by 80% will massively increase economic production and increase government revenue. Starting at a 0% tax rate, moving up to 20% will greatly increase government revenue. There is a rate which maximises revenue. If the current rate is too high, reducing it will boost the economy, increasing paychecks, and increase revenue. If the current rate is too low, increasing it will boost revenue to the government, at the cost of reducing people's paychecks.
There is of course a LOT of debate about what the ideal rate is for a given country, the rate which maximises government revenue. Studies indicate the best rate is probably somewhere between 20%-30%, that's the general range you get if you leave politics out of it and just try to objectively optimize revenue.
While either increasing or decreasing tax rates may increase government revenue, increased rates almost always decrease people's pay checks. Therefore it's better to err on the side of a tax rate that's slightly lower than what optimizes government revenue. Better for you to get $2000 and the government get $950 than for you to get $1000 and the government gets $1000.
Also of course the different types of taxes have completely different optimum rates. One of the best indicators for how well an economy will do is savings rate, how much people save up and invest. People who save up in a 401K now are generating revenue for the government both now and layer, so you want tax policy to strongly encourage savings and investment.
The Nords also have much more impedance between the government and "the will of the people". America has weak political parties, and the smoke filled back rooms are long gone. The people get what they want, whether that is bread and circuses, or trillion dollar tax cuts
The American people didn't want the tax cut, it was actually pretty unpopular. Major GOP donors wanted the tax cut.
That's also why the US doesn't have Universal Healthcare or DACA despite both being popular policies.
The US does have weak parties, but the result isn't the public pulling the strings, it's donors and lobbyists. If the US had stronger parties they'd be free to spurn special interests and do what the public wants.
I stole this Sig
Wealth comes from production. You can't arbitrarily declare a certain amount of money and then expect that to hold up; that's what central banks do and EVERY time it leads to an eventual market crash. F.A. Hayek won the Nobel Prize in Economics for this analysis of the business cycle.
Money is just a tool to facilitate trade; it's "stuff" that constitutes actual wealth: food, houses, cars, clothing, electronics, etc. And creating new stuff requires production.
Socialism cannot work over the long-term because it has no price system to deal with the scarcity of "stuff."
Here's some free economic education for you:
www.BernieIsWrong.com
The US government is run by corporations who buy politicians. Voters are irrelevant. Corporations get tax breaks, subsidies and protection from competition. Voters get screwed.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
I think that's the "outsmarted" part. Everyone knew Bush was an idiot and very unpopular. Trump was a much better liar.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?