7 ms·

Can someone actually explain what Sam wants to do here? I've read the post 4 times and I still can't see an y sort of plan, numbers, etc to actually critique,

Can someone actually explain what Sam wants to do here? I've read the post 4 times and I still can't see an y sort of plan, numbers, etc to actually critique, Which is odd because he specifically ask you to give feedback but never follows through on presenting the actual idea. He does motivate why he thinks a share of the GDP is so he gets the why, but never actually gets into the what, and how. I mean the GDP isn't just something you can siphon off money from and give it to someone as it's not a thing that anyone owns. So if you want to give out a portion of the GDP, I think what he really means is pay a universal income that is locked to GDP growth, but he never really says this.

aaron-lebo 9y ago
He's putting forward a vague political plan because he wants to be a politician.
RivieraKid 9y ago
It's basic income branded in a way that's more attractive for economically right-wing people (aka "capitalists").
- s17n 9y ago
  The difference between this and standard UBI proposals is that standard UBI gives everybody a certain fixed amount of money, whereas this gives everybody a certain percentage of GDP.
- foodshin 9y ago
  On the nose. Reads like he picked up a copy of Lakoff's "Don't think of an elephant!"and is attempting to apply framing theory. Great job sans the lack of details–though that in itself is probably intentional. It's useful to try out different metaphors and see what sticks.
- eksu 9y ago
  If you want to brand basic income in a way for conservatives, advocate for a Negative Income Tax (Friedman's idea) as an alternative to welfare bureaucracy.
  - avar 9y ago
    Basic income isn't like Negative Income Tax at all. The core idea of BI is that no matter how much money you make you always get the BI, it's "basic". NIT is just moving the progressive tax system into negative values, which means you subsidize the poor but once you make enough money you won't get subsidized.
    - kgwgk 9y ago
      Take the NIT situation, with a set of people i=1,..,N paying some amount X_i (maybe negative) of taxes. Now give all of them the same basic income BI, while changing the taxes paid [received if negative] by each of them to Y_i=X_i+BI. Do yo see the equivalence?
      - avar 9y ago
        Yes, of course the rich are going to end up paying for BI no matter what. At some point the government is just taking $1000 out of your wallet and handing it back as BI, depending on your income. But this is explicitly what the proponents of BI want. It's as much about the optics as who pays for it. I.e. the idea is to create a program that draws its political support from everyone getting paid a check, similar to how Roosevelt enacted social security to include all citizens, even those who were millionaires and had no need for it. Which is what sets it apart from Negative Income Tax.
        kgwgk 9y ago
        So it’s not like it at all, but it’s the same and it’s just that it looks different. Ok then. I can see why talking about receiving money is more popular than talking about taxes.
        avar 9y ago
        I'm not an advocate for BI but I think I've given you an accurate summary of what BI proponents would say about a NIT. E.g. listen to this Econtalk episode[1] where the host / guest have a debate on this exact topic. Your argument that BI would be revenue neutral for some taxpayers and therefore we should just use NIT to avoid the sillyness of the government taking $1 from you just to give $1 right back to you isn't wrong, but it's missing what BI proponents are trying to achieve. It's mainly about achieving roughly the same ends with different optics, and the comparison to Social Security is often brought up. Enacting any system like this is going to be politically difficult, and BI proponents believe that "everyone gets the same" is an easier sell than "this is another subsidy for the poor". 1. http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2017/01/michael_munger_3.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2017/01/michael_munger_3.ht...
bb88 9y ago
It's a rebranded form of guaranteed basic income.
ronnier 9y ago
He wants to share your money that you've worked for.
- whamlastxmas 9y ago
  Go make that money in a bubble completely separate from society and then maybe you can claim that society isn't entitled to some of it.
  - intrasight 9y ago
    While I agree with what you said, the counter-argument is that we do already pay taxes for the services that we use. You could argue that those taxes are too low because they don't capture the "gestalt" of civilization. But if you pursue that argument, then all humans, not just US citizens, should have equity since all humans contribute to the gestalt of civilization.
simonsarris 9y ago
> Can someone actually explain what Sam wants to do here? I've read the post 4 times and I still can't see an y sort of plan Run for office perhaps. In other words, if you can't discern a plan, maybe the post is more about Sam than it is about a plan. (NOTE: I do think he has a plan here, just very back of the envelope. I think he's mulling over ways to incrementally roll out UBI, which if you think UBI is a good idea, figuring out an incrementalist approach is hugely crucial, important work. I don't think UBI is a good idea, but I do think this post is about a real thought and not just Sam posing or something. I have faith that there's real intellectual sincerity here.)
unfunco 9y ago
An annual bonus just for being an American.
- ImSkeptical 9y ago
  I think it would be an annual bonus for some Americans, and an annual tax increase for others. As someone who, I suspect, would be in the second group, I feel like we do enough of this kind of thing already.
  - CaptSpify 9y ago
    And as someone who, I suspect, would be in the second group as well, I feel like we do the tax increase part way too much, but we don't do the annual bonus part nearly enough.
    - chrisco255 9y ago
      That's because any policy which gives free money unilaterally to 320 million people is going to be incredibly expensive. 14,000 * 320 million = 4,480,000,000,000...$4.5 trillion. Just...no. This is more than the Federal government takes in every year currently ($3.27 trillion).
- r00fus 9y ago
  s/bonus/dividend/ Alaska does this [1]. The only problem with the idea is that some things aren't considered GDP while they grow the pie - open source and volunteering being good examples. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund
  - rtpg 9y ago
    "voting with the wallet" This is why research grants and outright government spending is a good tool in the toolbox. People are still paying for it through taxes, but because of the indirect nature we can judge the problem a bit more on its merits ("of course we want cancer research to happen and be funded")
dibujante 9y ago
Universal basic income. He wants to (numbers _entirely fabricated here_) tax 20% of US GDP and then give that money evenly to all adults, therefore giving every adult American an equal share of 20% of the GDP (which would be about $14,000 per year per adult).
- tomtimtall 9y ago
  You can't tax the GDP, it's a calculation on the state of the exonomy not a cash flow to the state.
  - dibujante 9y ago
    It's an abstraction. You can tax people/things at a rate that causes a number of dollars equal to 20% of the GDP to end up in the state coffers (which brings up its whole own class of issues - what, exactly, do you tax to get that money? Income? Wealth? Stocks? Vanity license plates?).
    - chrisco255 9y ago
      Yeah and what adverse impact is it going to have on economic growth when incentives are taken away from long term investments and towards short term consumption that would be stimulated by welfare payments to the general population? What adverse impact would it have on the economy 1, 5, 10 years out? The U.S. economic engine is a wonderfully effective thing and among the best modern marvels. Taking 20% of that arbitrarily and twisting it into something else could have deep consequences.
      - dibujante 9y ago
        Absolutely no idea. I was clarifying Sam's argument, not endorsing it.
  - dv_dt 9y ago
    I would phrase that more as how does Sam propose to specify a tax or set of taxes such that it represents 20% of the GDP.
dgregd 9y ago
He proposes a soft version of Socialism [1]. You can own a company but you will have to pay additional 20% income tax or 20% VAT (I am not sure how to gather in taxes 20% of GDP). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism "There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them, though social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms"
- kevinmchugh 9y ago
  It's remarkably similar to market socialism, discussed briefly by Matt Levine here: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-11-22/uber-hacks-and-bitcoin-futures https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-11-22/uber-hack... and Matt Bruenig here: https://peoplespolicyproject.org/2017/08/17/index-funds-are-a-proof-of-concept-for-market-socialism/ https://peoplespolicyproject.org/2017/08/17/index-funds-are-...
theptip 9y ago
One possible implementation would be to build an index tracking fund that tracks a significant portion of the US economy, and pays dividends to all citizens. It seems like it would be difficult to lock an entitlement program to GDP without encountering funding gaps at some point, though I suppose a funding gap hasn't stopped the Social Security program from continuing to pay out.

aaron-lebo 9y ago

He's putting forward a vague political plan because he wants to be a politician.

RivieraKid 9y ago

It's basic income branded in a way that's more attractive for economically right-wing people (aka "capitalists").

s17n 9y ago
The difference between this and standard UBI proposals is that standard UBI gives everybody a certain fixed amount of money, whereas this gives everybody a certain percentage of GDP.
foodshin 9y ago
On the nose. Reads like he picked up a copy of Lakoff's "Don't think of an elephant!"and is attempting to apply framing theory. Great job sans the lack of details–though that in itself is probably intentional. It's useful to try out different metaphors and see what sticks.
eksu 9y ago
If you want to brand basic income in a way for conservatives, advocate for a Negative Income Tax (Friedman's idea) as an alternative to welfare bureaucracy.
- avar 9y ago
  Basic income isn't like Negative Income Tax at all. The core idea of BI is that no matter how much money you make you always get the BI, it's "basic". NIT is just moving the progressive tax system into negative values, which means you subsidize the poor but once you make enough money you won't get subsidized.
  - kgwgk 9y ago
    Take the NIT situation, with a set of people i=1,..,N paying some amount X_i (maybe negative) of taxes. Now give all of them the same basic income BI, while changing the taxes paid [received if negative] by each of them to Y_i=X_i+BI. Do yo see the equivalence?
    - avar 9y ago
      Yes, of course the rich are going to end up paying for BI no matter what. At some point the government is just taking $1000 out of your wallet and handing it back as BI, depending on your income. But this is explicitly what the proponents of BI want. It's as much about the optics as who pays for it. I.e. the idea is to create a program that draws its political support from everyone getting paid a check, similar to how Roosevelt enacted social security to include all citizens, even those who were millionaires and had no need for it. Which is what sets it apart from Negative Income Tax.
      - kgwgk 9y ago
        So it’s not like it at all, but it’s the same and it’s just that it looks different. Ok then. I can see why talking about receiving money is more popular than talking about taxes.
        avar 9y ago
        I'm not an advocate for BI but I think I've given you an accurate summary of what BI proponents would say about a NIT. E.g. listen to this Econtalk episode[1] where the host / guest have a debate on this exact topic. Your argument that BI would be revenue neutral for some taxpayers and therefore we should just use NIT to avoid the sillyness of the government taking $1 from you just to give $1 right back to you isn't wrong, but it's missing what BI proponents are trying to achieve. It's mainly about achieving roughly the same ends with different optics, and the comparison to Social Security is often brought up. Enacting any system like this is going to be politically difficult, and BI proponents believe that "everyone gets the same" is an easier sell than "this is another subsidy for the poor". 1. http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2017/01/michael_munger_3.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2017/01/michael_munger_3.ht...

bb88 9y ago

It's a rebranded form of guaranteed basic income.

ronnier 9y ago

He wants to share your money that you've worked for.

whamlastxmas 9y ago
Go make that money in a bubble completely separate from society and then maybe you can claim that society isn't entitled to some of it.
- intrasight 9y ago
  While I agree with what you said, the counter-argument is that we do already pay taxes for the services that we use. You could argue that those taxes are too low because they don't capture the "gestalt" of civilization. But if you pursue that argument, then all humans, not just US citizens, should have equity since all humans contribute to the gestalt of civilization.

simonsarris 9y ago

> Can someone actually explain what Sam wants to do here? I've read the post 4 times and I still can't see an y sort of plan Run for office perhaps. In other words, if you can't discern a plan, maybe the post is more about Sam than it is about a plan. (NOTE: I do think he has a plan here, just very back of the envelope. I think he's mulling over ways to incrementally roll out UBI, which if you think UBI is a good idea, figuring out an incrementalist approach is hugely crucial, important work. I don't think UBI is a good idea, but I do think this post is about a real thought and not just Sam posing or something. I have faith that there's real intellectual sincerity here.)

unfunco 9y ago

An annual bonus just for being an American.

ImSkeptical 9y ago
I think it would be an annual bonus for some Americans, and an annual tax increase for others. As someone who, I suspect, would be in the second group, I feel like we do enough of this kind of thing already.
- CaptSpify 9y ago
  And as someone who, I suspect, would be in the second group as well, I feel like we do the tax increase part way too much, but we don't do the annual bonus part nearly enough.
  - chrisco255 9y ago
    That's because any policy which gives free money unilaterally to 320 million people is going to be incredibly expensive. 14,000 * 320 million = 4,480,000,000,000...$4.5 trillion. Just...no. This is more than the Federal government takes in every year currently ($3.27 trillion).
r00fus 9y ago
s/bonus/dividend/ Alaska does this [1]. The only problem with the idea is that some things aren't considered GDP while they grow the pie - open source and volunteering being good examples. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund
- rtpg 9y ago
  "voting with the wallet" This is why research grants and outright government spending is a good tool in the toolbox. People are still paying for it through taxes, but because of the indirect nature we can judge the problem a bit more on its merits ("of course we want cancer research to happen and be funded")

dibujante 9y ago

Universal basic income. He wants to (numbers _entirely fabricated here_) tax 20% of US GDP and then give that money evenly to all adults, therefore giving every adult American an equal share of 20% of the GDP (which would be about $14,000 per year per adult).

tomtimtall 9y ago
You can't tax the GDP, it's a calculation on the state of the exonomy not a cash flow to the state.
- dibujante 9y ago
  It's an abstraction. You can tax people/things at a rate that causes a number of dollars equal to 20% of the GDP to end up in the state coffers (which brings up its whole own class of issues - what, exactly, do you tax to get that money? Income? Wealth? Stocks? Vanity license plates?).
  - chrisco255 9y ago
    Yeah and what adverse impact is it going to have on economic growth when incentives are taken away from long term investments and towards short term consumption that would be stimulated by welfare payments to the general population? What adverse impact would it have on the economy 1, 5, 10 years out? The U.S. economic engine is a wonderfully effective thing and among the best modern marvels. Taking 20% of that arbitrarily and twisting it into something else could have deep consequences.
    - dibujante 9y ago
      Absolutely no idea. I was clarifying Sam's argument, not endorsing it.
- dv_dt 9y ago
  I would phrase that more as how does Sam propose to specify a tax or set of taxes such that it represents 20% of the GDP.

dgregd 9y ago

He proposes a soft version of Socialism [1]. You can own a company but you will have to pay additional 20% income tax or 20% VAT (I am not sure how to gather in taxes 20% of GDP). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism "There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them, though social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms"

kevinmchugh 9y ago
It's remarkably similar to market socialism, discussed briefly by Matt Levine here: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-11-22/uber-hacks-and-bitcoin-futures https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-11-22/uber-hack... and Matt Bruenig here: https://peoplespolicyproject.org/2017/08/17/index-funds-are-a-proof-of-concept-for-market-socialism/ https://peoplespolicyproject.org/2017/08/17/index-funds-are-...

theptip 9y ago

One possible implementation would be to build an index tracking fund that tracks a significant portion of the US economy, and pays dividends to all citizens. It seems like it would be difficult to lock an entitlement program to GDP without encountering funding gaps at some point, though I suppose a funding gap hasn't stopped the Social Security program from continuing to pay out.