5 ms·
FTA, "It’s called a social wealth fund, a pool of investment assets in some ways like the giant index or mutual funds already popular with retirement savings ac
by cholmon 9y ago
FTA, "It’s called a social wealth fund, a pool of investment assets in some ways like the giant index or mutual funds already popular with retirement savings accounts or pension funds, but one owned collectively by society as a whole. One that paid dividends not to the few, or even just to the shrinking middle class lucky enough to have their savings invested, but to everyone."
- crooked-v 9y agoSo, effectively the same thing as a basic income guarantee?
- danans 9y agoThe end result is a basic income, but this is more about how that would be accomplished, and it ties the income to the wealth if the country. The income is drawn from a dividend on a kind of sovereign wealth fund which would be gradually capitalized with government assets, increased wealth and capital gains taxes, and possibly directly via the Fed (rather than the Fed capitalizing private banks). This is in contrast to other schemes that directly pay the UBI based on more progressive taxation. In the end it is still redistributive, but it redistributes capital downwards and not just income.
- Epenthesis 9y agoSimilar. It's the 401k employer contribution to UBI's defined benefit pension.
- ebiester 9y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_credit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_credit Social credit is slightly different than minimum income in that social credit is tied to the wealth of the country rather than the cost of subsistence.
- gozur88 9y agoIt wouldn't be a guarantee of anything, just a citizenship-based ownership of a big mutual fund.
- ccachor 9y agoThis sounds an awful like a privatized social security system (that everyone knows would be abused...)
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y agoWhat do you mean? It sounds like it's completely public not private. How would it be abused?
- dragonwriter 9y agoIt's invested in private firms (SS is in government securities), and it's abusable insofar as it is possible for those making investment decisions to pursue personal or corrupt agendas rather than the public interest. Except for scale, it's not at all unique in this way, every fund where managers act as agents with other people's money has this as potential abuse vector, and while many operate tolerably well most of the time, abuses are a recurring thing.