A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

A UBI (usually, that "unconditional" not "universal", though "universal" seems to be becoming popular among outlets that are newly jumping onboard the idea) is distinguished from other social benefit programs in not being means-tested or behavior-tested. Obviously, there has to be some bounds on who is qualified (everyone on the planet? Probably not. Adult citizens are usually the narrowest category suggested, all legal residents regardless of age or citizenship usually the broadest. Any of these are still UBIs, so long as they aren't means- or behavior-tested.)

But, the big problem is the idea that the UBI should initially be sufficient to lift everyone out of poverty. The immediate goal should be to have a UBI which reduces poverty and addresses the fact that capital increasing takes the reward of economic growth, rather than it being broadly distributed. The long-term goal should be to displace and go beyond existing means-tested anti-poverty programs in lifting people out of poverty, but the best way to do that is to build a system that grows naturally.

As an example: eliminate preferential treatment of capital income in income taxation, maintaining otherwise general structure of the existing progressive income tax system, and set aside a portion of the total income tax revenue equal to the initial increase in tax revenue for the "Common Welfare Fund".

90% of the new money in the fund is distributed as UBI by equal division among qualified recipients (e.g., all citizens and LPRs, if that's the group defined to receive the UBI), the remainder is retained as a stabilization fund (with returns on the stabilization fund treated as "new money" in future years, and rules providing for some distribution from the stabilization fund to current benefits to reduce calculated benefit declines.)

Each year, reduce the actual minimum hourly wage from its nominal level (which I'm presuming gets inflation-indexed before this) by 1/2000 of the annual UBI level (for wages covered by overtime mandates, the minimum overtime wage is calculated first, and then reduced for the UBI) -- over time, the UBI displaces the minimum wage.

Other (e.g., means-tested) benefit programs aren't directly eliminated (immediately), but income from the UBI is treated as normal income for both income tax and benefit calculation purposes, so (assuming economic growth such that real tax revenues pre capita increase faster than inflation), even with eligibility criteria indexed for inflation, growing UBI will reduce the proportion of the population eligible for any such programs, eventually to 0 as the UBI crosses the maximum threshold for each program, allowing the programs to be retired.

We'll have to agree to disagree. And as I say, step outside your bubble. The vast vast majority of the population reject basic income, in favour of a meritocracy, where the harder you work, the more money you can earn.

Confiscating money from everyone, and then distributing it equally amongst the population (Regardless of whether they need it or deserve it) doesn't sit very well with people.

> What about the consumption taxes we have on the books?

The broader they are, the more likely liberals are to oppose them, and oppose expanding them. Replacing the progressive income tax system with something regressive isn't something that's going to get support on the left.

> Gas tax? Hugely regressive.

But very narrow.

> Wouldn't liberals support additional carbon taxes?

Many liberals support the concept of carbon taxes as a behavior control mechanism, but not as the main way of funding government, and many raise concerns about the regressive impact. But, with them, the goal is to limit the thing being taxed and fund efforts to improve our ability to avoid it, not be the primary funding method for government.

> Value-added tax?

Virtually all the support I've seen on this in the US is on the right (often competing against flat tax proposals.)

> What about the tax of inflation that serves to redistribute wealth from savers to debtors? (middle class -> government)

While the classical middle class (e.g., Marx's petit bourgeoisie) are net holders of assets, the "middle class" as the term is used in modern discussions in the US (which is largely the middle income segment of wage laborers) aren't really net savers.

> now that you have enough free cash to afford a security deposit on a different place

This leads me back to my original question - EVERYONE now has "enough free cash to afford a security deposit on a different place", so if EVERYONE goes and does that, we're right back to where we came from within 1 year -- the lowest class still has the lowest quality apartments with the lowest class slumlord landlords!!

Nothing changes except less people think they have to work (which causes society to further cave in on itself)!!

If anything, this damages the supply side, because now you have higher demand in the form of 20-somethings attempting to escape their parents/grandparents homes, as well as anyone who thinks they no longer have to live with roommates. Nothing but distorted perceptions.

And now, we also have the side effect of fewer people working and being economically productive in society, thanks to you telling your shitty boss to shove it. Meanwhile, anyone who was making something equivalent (or a bit more) than the new base salary can just say screw working altogether.

I don't see how any other outcome prevails. The cons continue to outweigh the pros, and you have no clue what other unforeseen side effects will unfold.

Personally I think the opposite is true to some degree. Age does not guarantee that you are a rational and well informed citizen. I've also read numerous articles about how young people are more tolerant (gay marriage is a good example), moving back into dense urban areas (causing less sprawl and a renewed interest in better public transport and urban planning), and willing to at least admit that major challenges like anthropogenic climate change are real. Society can learn from people of all ages, but often the enthusiasm and free time of youth is what is needed to drive real societal change.