8 ms·

I like the idea of UBI, but the problem with schemes to improve wealth equality is that usually the middle class ends up footing almost all of the bill. If a r

I like the idea of UBI, but the problem with schemes to improve wealth equality is that usually the middle class ends up footing almost all of the bill. If a rich person feels that their wealth is threatened, they can evade the negative consequences of the scheme (taxes) by relocating their head office to the Caymans. On the other hand, if a middle class family is negatively impacted by the scheme - They cannot evade it; they can't afford to move to another country because they rely on their jobs for income. If UBI is to be instated, we would also have to implement harsh laws to prevent the upper classes from evading taxes. Moving wealth to a tax haven should be made a criminal offence (with jail time). Also, income (passive income in particular) should always be taxed based on the country of origin (from which the payment originated) instead of the complex network of case-by-case tax treaties that currently exist. A single, origin-based tax system would not have all the loopholes that a complex case-by-case system has. Any country that refuses to enter into the origin-based tax treaty should be kicked out of the UN and trade sanctions should be imposed. In practice, a rich person is currently not bound by the laws of their own country; they are bound by the laws of the country whose laws are the most convenient for them - They can literally pick and choose how much tax they want to pay.

prawn 10y ago
Not even necessarily middle class. In Australia, many families who I'd consider middle class use family trusts, negative gearing and the like to minimise tax. The group just below that cops the worst of it, IMO.
arebop 10y ago
Does it really matter if a billionaire stacks up billions in some Cayman account? If so, it is straightforward to use inflation to redistribute those digits. What I care about is a billionaire who buys up all the land in my country. The land can't be hidden and is therefore easy to tax. I care about a billionaire who eats gold leaf ice cream sundaes while the children across town are malnourished, but it is easy to tax gold and food sales at restaurants and groceries. The big problem historically with sales tax has been that it is regressive, but with basic income that doesn't matter any more. There's no problem I know about with land taxes except misguided concern for the elderly and corrupt loopholes. Why not stop even trying to tax financial abstractions and just address hoarding?
- iopq 10y ago
  Returns on investment always beat inflation in the long run.
- madaxe_again 10y ago
  Those billions in a cayman account are dead money. They are the marginal efficiency of labour crystallised, and then transformed into a immotile instrument which benefits nobody. You say it does no harm, but why do you think we're still working 60 hour weeks when we've improved efficiency in all fields by orders of magnitude since industrialisation? All that efficiency gain's benefit was "realised" by the elites, but until that money is spent, loaned, invested, used - that value is destroyed. Sure, sure, tell me it's a store of value, but you'd still think the squirrel that stored 1000 tonnes of acorns for winter and wouldn't share, causing furry famine, to only then after winter forget where he left them and demand more acorns from the working squirrels was pretty damn irrational.
  - svantana 10y ago
    Money in bank accounts is not like acorns, it's more like having other squirrels owe you acorns. I don't see why that is such a big deal. People working 60 hour weeks has less to do with the Cayman islands than with those people needing a place to stay, and the demand of land far outstripping the supply, making it a zero sum game. That's why a huge land tax is a no brainer, but of course it will never happen, because the land owners can always pull out the old "poor granny won't afford to stay in her own house" argument and get all the sympathies on their side.
- te_chris 10y ago
  The thing is, in a service based economy we desperately need the rich to buy ostentatious, pointless shit/experiences purely in order to retain jobs.
aminok 10y ago
>If UBI is to be instated, we would also have to implement harsh laws to prevent the upper classes from evading taxes. Moving wealth to a tax haven should be made a criminal offence (with jail time). How about you don't instate something that requires harsh authoritarian penalties against non-violent behavior to work.
- mynewtb 10y ago
  Crime does not have to be violent to deserve drastic penalty.
  - aminok 10y ago
    Anything can be made a crime by passing a law. But only violent and/or fraudulent behavior should be illegal. Laws imprisoning those who refuse to hand over a share of the currency they receive in private trade are unjust, and should be abolished.
  - zeta0134 10y ago
    I feel like the punishment should be appropriate to the crime though. Leave jail for the criminally dangerous, those whose freedom would be a physical danger to others. (Murderers, rapists, etc.) Fraud? If it's money that was gained, then it should be money lost. Fine them into the dirt, but I don't think jail time is appropriate. Making money illegally doesn't make someone a murderer, it just makes then dishonest.
    - aoeuasdf1 10y ago
      The problem is then the rich will do a simple expected value computation to decide whether to do fraud. A disproportionate and non monetary punishment will be far more effective at deterring them.
      - Spivak 10y ago
        > The problem is then the rich will do a simple expected value computation to decide whether to do fraud. Then write the law so that the penalty can never possibly be worth the cost. Jail is downright inhumane, and the only reason we should tolerate it is the case when the person is violent and there is good reason to believe that in the absence of imprisonment they will be a danger to others. And they should remain in jail only as long as the threat of danger remains credible.
transfire 10y ago
This doesn't matter at all. Taxes always work out the same in the wash. Put the tax on the sale of goods, the consumer pays them; put the tax on the rich CEOs income, then he raises the prices of his goods to suite and again the consumer pays them. It's better that the taxes are low in the chain to prevent the tax dodging you cite.
ryanlol 10y ago
>If UBI is to be instated, we would also have to implement harsh laws to prevent the upper classes from evading taxes. Moving wealth to a tax haven should be made a criminal offence (with jail time). Moving out of the country should be a criminal offence? Pretty strong North Korea vibes right there.

prawn 10y ago

Not even necessarily middle class. In Australia, many families who I'd consider middle class use family trusts, negative gearing and the like to minimise tax. The group just below that cops the worst of it, IMO.

arebop 10y ago

Does it really matter if a billionaire stacks up billions in some Cayman account? If so, it is straightforward to use inflation to redistribute those digits. What I care about is a billionaire who buys up all the land in my country. The land can't be hidden and is therefore easy to tax. I care about a billionaire who eats gold leaf ice cream sundaes while the children across town are malnourished, but it is easy to tax gold and food sales at restaurants and groceries. The big problem historically with sales tax has been that it is regressive, but with basic income that doesn't matter any more. There's no problem I know about with land taxes except misguided concern for the elderly and corrupt loopholes. Why not stop even trying to tax financial abstractions and just address hoarding?

iopq 10y ago
Returns on investment always beat inflation in the long run.
madaxe_again 10y ago
Those billions in a cayman account are dead money. They are the marginal efficiency of labour crystallised, and then transformed into a immotile instrument which benefits nobody. You say it does no harm, but why do you think we're still working 60 hour weeks when we've improved efficiency in all fields by orders of magnitude since industrialisation? All that efficiency gain's benefit was "realised" by the elites, but until that money is spent, loaned, invested, used - that value is destroyed. Sure, sure, tell me it's a store of value, but you'd still think the squirrel that stored 1000 tonnes of acorns for winter and wouldn't share, causing furry famine, to only then after winter forget where he left them and demand more acorns from the working squirrels was pretty damn irrational.
- svantana 10y ago
  Money in bank accounts is not like acorns, it's more like having other squirrels owe you acorns. I don't see why that is such a big deal. People working 60 hour weeks has less to do with the Cayman islands than with those people needing a place to stay, and the demand of land far outstripping the supply, making it a zero sum game. That's why a huge land tax is a no brainer, but of course it will never happen, because the land owners can always pull out the old "poor granny won't afford to stay in her own house" argument and get all the sympathies on their side.
te_chris 10y ago
The thing is, in a service based economy we desperately need the rich to buy ostentatious, pointless shit/experiences purely in order to retain jobs.

aminok 10y ago

>If UBI is to be instated, we would also have to implement harsh laws to prevent the upper classes from evading taxes. Moving wealth to a tax haven should be made a criminal offence (with jail time). How about you don't instate something that requires harsh authoritarian penalties against non-violent behavior to work.

mynewtb 10y ago
Crime does not have to be violent to deserve drastic penalty.
- aminok 10y ago
  Anything can be made a crime by passing a law. But only violent and/or fraudulent behavior should be illegal. Laws imprisoning those who refuse to hand over a share of the currency they receive in private trade are unjust, and should be abolished.
- zeta0134 10y ago
  I feel like the punishment should be appropriate to the crime though. Leave jail for the criminally dangerous, those whose freedom would be a physical danger to others. (Murderers, rapists, etc.) Fraud? If it's money that was gained, then it should be money lost. Fine them into the dirt, but I don't think jail time is appropriate. Making money illegally doesn't make someone a murderer, it just makes then dishonest.
  - aoeuasdf1 10y ago
    The problem is then the rich will do a simple expected value computation to decide whether to do fraud. A disproportionate and non monetary punishment will be far more effective at deterring them.
    - Spivak 10y ago
      > The problem is then the rich will do a simple expected value computation to decide whether to do fraud. Then write the law so that the penalty can never possibly be worth the cost. Jail is downright inhumane, and the only reason we should tolerate it is the case when the person is violent and there is good reason to believe that in the absence of imprisonment they will be a danger to others. And they should remain in jail only as long as the threat of danger remains credible.

transfire 10y ago

This doesn't matter at all. Taxes always work out the same in the wash. Put the tax on the sale of goods, the consumer pays them; put the tax on the rich CEOs income, then he raises the prices of his goods to suite and again the consumer pays them. It's better that the taxes are low in the chain to prevent the tax dodging you cite.

ryanlol 10y ago

>If UBI is to be instated, we would also have to implement harsh laws to prevent the upper classes from evading taxes. Moving wealth to a tax haven should be made a criminal offence (with jail time). Moving out of the country should be a criminal offence? Pretty strong North Korea vibes right there.