Basic income

thought the whole point was that UBI is no questions asked, but also income tax is increased so higher earners effectively end up paying for their own BI?

That works too.

That also is more efficient to implement.

Means testing is a wedge issue that in practice is used to weaken the welfare state. Resist it wherever possible.

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/projects/social-wealth-fund/

I didn’t know about Alaska

can’t find the video any longer but I remember watching a Glenn Beck interview w Frank Llewelyn about “”socialism”” back during the ‘08 election and dude went to town on the AK Permanent Fund and Beck basically pulled the plug. It was vaguely exciting tv, as far as those things went in the olden times

I mean, if you want to be honest, and you want to take who of the four people running for national office was actually the most socialistic, it was Sarah Palin — because she administered a state that says that the oil revenues are collectively owned...

BECK: Right.

LLEWELLYN: ... and she used her position as governor to force the oil companies to pay the state more money, which they then redistributed to the people. Now, I have a feeling that that's what Chavez does in Venezuela, that people like you criticize him for. So, you know, that would, at least, be a more serious discussion .

BECK: Right.

LLEWELLYN: ... than the type of discussion that's appeared in magazines and whatever.

BECK: OK, Frank...

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/projects/social-wealth-fund/

I didn’t know about Alaska

― 𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Saturday, October 17, 2020 6:19 PM (one hour ago) bookmarkflaglink

imo the social wealth dividend is the best way to fund a UBI

why is that flopson?

i'm kinda of two minds about it

a trad public finance economics answer goes something like: 'the government should raise money via the optimal tax portfolio. it has the power of taxation; there's no reason for it to tax to spend to buy stocks and then pay out the dividends as transfers. it can just tax and transfer directly'

however, this ignores administrative difficulties across taxing different income sources. wealth is hard to tax and previous attempts were unsuccessful at raising much money; of the twelve european countries had wealth taxes in 1990, only 3 still have them, and they aren't huge sources of revenue. wealth is hard to tax for a variety of banal reasons, many (but not all) of which are related to avoidance/enforcement: people can report wealth just below the tax threshold (the literature in empirical public finance on "bunching" finds lots of evidence of this with wealth taxes), they can exploit asset exemptions and shift the portfolio of wealth, and they can stash revenue abroad or expatriate.

some taxes are harder to implement and raise more money than others. the nordics get huge government revenues with broad-based consumption taxes and VATs. technically speaking these taxes are regressive (since poor people spend a larger share of their income on consumption than the rich), but that regressivity can easily be netted out by a progressive structure in other parts of the tax code

saez and zucman argue that this time is different, and with the right policy we can tax wealth properly this time and raise tonnes of money. maybe they're right; i don't know. they make a good case, but it's hard to tell ex ante what will happen. there are also other things you can do like estate taxes that get to wealth and are much easier to administer

wealth is insanely unequally distributed and so is the flow income from it. so we really want to somehow redistribute that value, if not with a wealth tax then by some other means. buying up wealth and redistributing the flow income using a SWF is super easy.

also, politically, i think it's an easy sell. contrast SWF with a UBI funded by a tax on personal income. say the UBI is 10k per year. people above some level of income will pay more in personal income taxes for the UBI than they receive from it. will they still support the UBI? maybe. to the extent that the distribution of personal income is skewed, the group of people who pay more into the UBI than they pay in will be smaller. income is pretty skewed, but it's not as skewed as wealth.

in an SWF, there is a one-time purchase (or, if you're really radical, expropriation) of wealth that has to be paid for. but after that, the UBI funds just flow from the dividends. and those dividends would have been going to the wealth holders, who we already know are a tiny group.

i also think it's easy to sell politically. people hate the ultra wealthy, dramatically underestimate how unequally distributed wealth is, and become way more in favour of taxing wealth when you tell them how unequally distributed it is (see this paper on estate tax https://www.nber.org/papers/w18865). SWF seems to me to be a good way to get tax-phobic USA to get on board with redistributing wealth

A wealth tax (2% over $50 million, 3% over a billion) could fund a $80/month UBI, a 20% VAT could fund a $800 UBI. So while a wealth tax would be more progressive on the tax side, when taking both sides into account the VAT UBI would cut poverty more. Might as well do both though

— James Medlock (@jdcmedlock) September 26, 2020

^ btw caek if u don't already, this account is a must-follow for left public finance. kinda like matt bruenig without the constant political hot takes that get him cancelled every other week

wow, great post flopson

thx trace :)

btw, the saez zucman BPEA piece i linked to is probably the best single thing to read on wealth taxes imho (and hopefully largely accessible)

thank you! that makes sense.

the nordics get huge government revenues with broad-based consumption taxes and VATs. technically speaking these taxes are regressive (since poor people spend a larger share of their income on consumption than the rich), but that regressivity can easily be netted out by a progressive structure in other parts of the tax code

the can, but are they in practice? how?

SWF seems to me to be a good way to get tax-phobic USA to get on board with redistributing wealth

seems like this is demonstrably true given the existence proof of alaska.

i actually followed medlock this week ironically (i am a proposition 13 crank.)

seems like this is demonstrably true given the existence proof of alaska.

alaska a bit of a weird case since they didn't have to raise taxes to buy the SWF, it was just the money from alaska's oil industry. in the kind of SWF the people's policy project are proposing, the government would have to pay the value of the stocks in the first place, which would cost $$$

the can, but are they in practice? how?

in the nordics, a combo of transfers + increasing other progressive taxes; making income tax more progressive, boosting inheritance tax, paying for universal programs, etc.

anita baker’s on board

Some
Good
News
*UBI https://t.co/M1pvb7wmGH

— Anita Baker (@IAMANITABAKER) January 14, 2021

ok Jack but which girl?

Lol. jack seems the least bad of big tech ceos maybe

https://patrickcollison.com/ is probably less bad

i like pat c

No Jack is a Nazi sympathizer

He seems like he might be ecofash

He seems like he might be a) an ideological idiot and b) an idiot

either that or for sure a nazi

luckily he'll still have 2.6 billion to see him through the rough times.

who says that he will actually use the money to provide basic income to poor people? He only says he will "shift the focus" ... like he could follow the example of his buddy at Salesforce and give $30 million to a well-endowed university to "study" UBI

I know this is means-testy but if there was ever a group to single out for BI, it’s foster children.

https://theappeal.org/the-lab/report/guaranteed-income-for-kids-transitioning-out-of-foster-care/

pilot program just launched in St. Paul

https://www.stpaul.gov/departments/mayors-office/peoples-prosperity-guaranteed-income-pilot#:~:text=The%20City%20of%20Saint%20Paul,of%20up%20to%2018%20months.

these people appear to have worked it out

https://livingincome.org.uk

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jun/04/universal-basic-income-of-1600-pounds-a-month-to-be-trialled-in-england

1600 pounds of what?

I'm sorry.

churned butter. it’s radical but we’re living in extreme times

East Finchley?!

there isn't much to be learned about what impact ubi would have on society by paying it to 30 people, it needs to be nationally trialled, ya bunch of tight gits.

i need all the details before i relocate to Jarrow

at least it would cover a week's rent for a box room with no sink in East Finchley

it's going to have a different psychological impact on the recipients than a national ubi rollout would. With them knowing they are part of a small and quite lucky sample group. Their mentality is going to be that of prize winners. Wahey, I'm going to the bookies and the pub every day this week.

Pretty rough if you sign up for the trial and they stick you in the control group!!

"Sorry, sir, you're getting the placebo."

confirmation on the statement that 1600 HASN'T been credited to their account every month might cause them to have a very negative attitude

Pretty small sample group I thought.

Also, in the end this will just be another piece of data ppl can wave around to show that it's a good idea while the govt answers "no", right?

yup, pretty much like the other trials we've seen

a fascinating waste of time trying to evidence UBI when the counter arguments will all involve red faced journalists shouting about the workshy and magic money trees and the counter arguments will be successful

any idea that you can convince the UK state of is probably not an idea worth having

The fact that the UK is considering a trial of UBI surprises me.

I wonder if the aim is to try it so they can kill it off and say it has been discredited.

Or maybe the internal politics of government are more complicated than that.

I believe that on balance, UBI would be a good thing and could improve our society.

steady on there

I think this latest trial is being run by the Autonomy think tank, so it's not govt sponsored. There has been a three-year pilot of 500 care leavers running in Wales since last summer however. Think it could feasibly be introduces in some limited way by one of the devolved authorities.

Heartbreaking that every time we get media attention for basic income work, the inbox fills up with people desperate to be included in any trial – along with accounts of how a cruel, conditional welfare system has let them down

— Jack Kellam (@Jack_Kellam_) June 5, 2023

for real

Everyone is talking about a universal basic income today.

I think it’s a bad idea, and that we need Universal Basic Services instead (UBS) - where we have free education, healthcare & transport, alongside a massive expansion of social housing.

From my TED talk last year. pic.twitter.com/8rglnOiBHg

— Aaron Bastani (@AaronBastani) June 5, 2023

A rejection of UBI.

But if we can't have UBS, maybe UBI is better than nothing?

if ubi is offered as an alternative to basic services, its bad