Universal Basic Income is Capitalism 2.0

Because it's simpler and avoids duplicating effort, since the means testing is rolled into the tax system, and avoids perverse consequences, since with a single payment system you don't end up with a combination that has greater than 1:1 reductions in benefits without outside income for some recipients at some income levels.

> Milton Friedman long ago proposed a negative income tax to replace means-tested welfare programs.

A negative income tax is, in terms of who gets what payment, exactly equivalent to a UBI funded by a progressive income tax.

A monthly UBI with the usual annual income tax filing and reconciliation payment/refund is a better mechanism than simply rolling the UBI into the income tax calculation and annual reconciliation, though.

> I do think people radically underestimate the unforeseen consequences of a free guaranteed income, even if it was low. I’d be willing to live as a poor person if that meant not having to work.

I think people like you overestimate it, because they ignore the well-established effects of general deprivation and voracious human wants. They may also overestimate their own tolerance for non-work, as do many people leading up to retirement.

> I’d be willing to live as a poor person if that meant not having to work.

Some people would. But many more people would also be willing to work a little bit more for a little bit more, which UBI makes easier than existing means-tested programs.

And many people who initially would reduce work for the novelty of leisure would turn around later and work to have the things they couldn't afford on the basic stipend.

> I definitely would choose not to work or work less if that money came free from government. If I got free money I wouldn’t increase spending, I would reduce work.

Unless you are the poorest of the poor, that outcome isn't actually contrary to the design or problematic.

I bet everyone reading this has at one time or another met someone who is completely incapable of managing money at even simple levels. Or thinking ahead even. Not everyone can wisely use XX a month. Or even eat with it. Then what?

The fixation on money is a little nearsighted imo. It didn't always exist. It's just a tool for determining access to good and services. What if everyone could get a healthy meal and a clean safe place to sleep at any time and a shower and some net access or whatever is deemed necessary. Would that cost less or more then UBI?

(I still think some form of UBI might be a good idea for the present, just, we should think bigger and outside of the current economic stack for the long term.)

A carbon tax is overwhelmingly considered to be the most efficient solution by economists for Econ101 reasons—pricing negative externalities (correcting a market failure is more efficient than doing nothing), and enabling competition and comparative advantage (more efficient than command-and-control policies).

The idea of taxing things we want less of is known as a Pigouvian tax, by the way—and it’s considered a no-brainer even by the most conservative economists (e.g. Mankiw).

> good luck getting people to swallow a doubling of their tax bill even if you give it back.

Not so! Public opinion on climate change has shifted dramatically in the last several years. This poll from last year (and from a top Republican pollster to boot) found that people support a carbon-tax-and-dividend policy 4-to-1. 75% of GOP voters (!) under age 40 support this type of policy. Read all of the results, they are remarkable. It’s a winner in the eyes of both economists and the public. https://www.clcouncil.org/media/Luntz-Carbon-Dividends-Polli...

The problem is that a small loophole or exception paves the way for larger exceptions, and so on, which continues until the original concept is gutted and bleeds out to the status quo