4 ms·

> Seriously there is NO WAY in the world an UBI will cover the rent - even the rent alone - in any place where it makes sense starting a business. Wrong. UBI f

> Seriously there is NO WAY in the world an UBI will cover the rent - even the rent alone - in any place where it makes sense starting a business. Wrong. UBI financed by monopoly taxes makes rents go rock bottom. High uncompeted markup prices - Rents - are by definition caused by some kind of monopoly situation, because they are not competed away. You need to tax monopolies and not call it tax but a 'privilege fee' and reinvest the money into infrastructure or resistribute as dividends - which is UBI basically. There is NO WAY anything like UBI would ever work without curbing monopoly pricing because any money raised by income tax, VAT or any other means freely given to people will end up rising up rents and monopoly prices even higher.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
> You need to tax monopolies and not call it tax but a 'privilege fee' Probably better to just get rid of the monopolies, e.g. by relaxing zoning restrictions on density so that housing supply can respond to demand.
- anovikov 7y ago
  But you need to destroy democracy in order to be able to do that? Isn't that a too high price to pay? Also it will mean leaving tens of millions of largely elderly or at least 55+ people, bankrupt and destitute, and having to deal with the problem of feeding like 50M+ elderly people, instead of the same amount of young people who now can't afford rents? Is that REALLY worth the trouble? See it's not some imaginary "world jewry" or someone like that who owns all the apartments, it's the same ordinary American people, just older ones. Why forcibly taking money from one large demographic to another - from one who can't really change things for themselves much anymore to those who can - by destroying democracy in the process - is supposed to change anything at all for the better? And how is it even basically 'fair'? To me it feels both politically impossible, morally unjustifiable, and socially bullshit. "Get too many people very angry for no benefit at all".
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    No need for melodrama. People often sell a big house and buy a small house when they retire and then use the difference to live on, but reducing housing scarcity makes both costs go down. Which means the reduction in the difference (surplus) is less than the total reduction in the price of the housing, and is a net benefit to the country overall. Meanwhile housing costs have knock on effects for all other costs, so they go down too. Having lower costs is a major benefit for people on a fixed income. Reducing housing costs helps the indigent elderly at least as much as it does the average person. Who it hurts is the affluent elderly who own a big mansion and would get whacked harder than usual by a reduction in its value, but I'm not sure why I'm supposed to have a lot of sympathy for rich people trying to profit from artificial scarcity.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago

> You need to tax monopolies and not call it tax but a 'privilege fee' Probably better to just get rid of the monopolies, e.g. by relaxing zoning restrictions on density so that housing supply can respond to demand.

anovikov 7y ago
But you need to destroy democracy in order to be able to do that? Isn't that a too high price to pay? Also it will mean leaving tens of millions of largely elderly or at least 55+ people, bankrupt and destitute, and having to deal with the problem of feeding like 50M+ elderly people, instead of the same amount of young people who now can't afford rents? Is that REALLY worth the trouble? See it's not some imaginary "world jewry" or someone like that who owns all the apartments, it's the same ordinary American people, just older ones. Why forcibly taking money from one large demographic to another - from one who can't really change things for themselves much anymore to those who can - by destroying democracy in the process - is supposed to change anything at all for the better? And how is it even basically 'fair'? To me it feels both politically impossible, morally unjustifiable, and socially bullshit. "Get too many people very angry for no benefit at all".
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  No need for melodrama. People often sell a big house and buy a small house when they retire and then use the difference to live on, but reducing housing scarcity makes both costs go down. Which means the reduction in the difference (surplus) is less than the total reduction in the price of the housing, and is a net benefit to the country overall. Meanwhile housing costs have knock on effects for all other costs, so they go down too. Having lower costs is a major benefit for people on a fixed income. Reducing housing costs helps the indigent elderly at least as much as it does the average person. Who it hurts is the affluent elderly who own a big mansion and would get whacked harder than usual by a reduction in its value, but I'm not sure why I'm supposed to have a lot of sympathy for rich people trying to profit from artificial scarcity.