4 ms·

I think he fears that the main effect of a UBI-type program will be raised rents, it will be a transfer of wealth from members of the wealthy class to other mem

I think he fears that the main effect of a UBI-type program will be raised rents, it will be a transfer of wealth from members of the wealthy class to other members of the wealthy class, something of a Wework-style boondoggle.

crooked-v 7y ago
I feel like the lowest-overhead way to manage such a theoretical would be to have a progressive tax rate that, in the higher brackets, negates the UBI. That is, you give out $X to everybody, but everyone making over $Y+$X total has $X added to their taxes. This feels a little silly on a but-you're-doing-things-twice level, but it lets a UBI program and taxes both operate independently without needing to cross-verify things, which allows for lower overall staffing and less in the way of possible bureaucratic loopholes for people to get stuck in.
- orangecat 7y ago
  it lets a UBI program and taxes both operate independently without needing to cross-verify things, which allows for lower overall staffing and less in the way of possible bureaucratic loopholes for people to get stuck in. In software engineering terms, it reduces coupling. We do the same thing with Social Security: benefits are taxable so recipients with high incomes end up getting checks and paying some portion of them back, but that's simpler than trying to have the SSA figure out everyone's taxes.
- blackflame 7y ago
  This sort of logic just fails to understand human behavior. First off, you make the terrible assumption that there will be more people earning at least double $X so that you can take half of it to give to another that isn't making X. That's nowhere even close to a 50-50 split, and this policy would make it even less even not more. You cannot tax yourself to prosperity. All you are doing is taking money from the people that are producing and giving to the people who are not in the hopes that they might suddenly decide to be entrepreneurial with their newfound financial freedom. Guess what, that desire to become financially free is a far stronger motivator.

crooked-v 7y ago

I feel like the lowest-overhead way to manage such a theoretical would be to have a progressive tax rate that, in the higher brackets, negates the UBI. That is, you give out $X to everybody, but everyone making over $Y+$X total has $X added to their taxes. This feels a little silly on a but-you're-doing-things-twice level, but it lets a UBI program and taxes both operate independently without needing to cross-verify things, which allows for lower overall staffing and less in the way of possible bureaucratic loopholes for people to get stuck in.

orangecat 7y ago
it lets a UBI program and taxes both operate independently without needing to cross-verify things, which allows for lower overall staffing and less in the way of possible bureaucratic loopholes for people to get stuck in. In software engineering terms, it reduces coupling. We do the same thing with Social Security: benefits are taxable so recipients with high incomes end up getting checks and paying some portion of them back, but that's simpler than trying to have the SSA figure out everyone's taxes.
blackflame 7y ago
This sort of logic just fails to understand human behavior. First off, you make the terrible assumption that there will be more people earning at least double $X so that you can take half of it to give to another that isn't making X. That's nowhere even close to a 50-50 split, and this policy would make it even less even not more. You cannot tax yourself to prosperity. All you are doing is taking money from the people that are producing and giving to the people who are not in the hopes that they might suddenly decide to be entrepreneurial with their newfound financial freedom. Guess what, that desire to become financially free is a far stronger motivator.