3 ms·
Well, this particular proposal is very socialistic, in that it's saying "I want these people to receive this benefit, and I want those people over there to pay
by chiph 9y ago
Well, this particular proposal is very socialistic, in that it's saying "I want these people to receive this benefit, and I want those people over there to pay for it." But that's any system of taxation, really. The difference is he's talking about confiscating revenue from a private company in particular (and outside the normal channels)
The author uses the Alaskan oil field payout as an example of a BI system - which it is. But a quick trip to a supermarket in Anchorage will show that even a $2000 payment doesn't go very far with their high cost of living.
Doing some envelope math will show that UBI can't be funded in the US at a meaningful level. Not to mention the potential resistance to stopping all current benefit payments in favor of UBI payments (no more Social Security, disability, WIC program, etc. -- the AARP will scream like banshees)
- rsrsrs86 9y agoThe difference is that value added taxation changes prices and reduces economic output. Lump sum (fixed) negative taxes (basic income) has no effect on prices making it economically more efficient. Technically sales taxes in companies reduce marginal revenues so companies choose lower production levels.