4 ms·

> Progressive Guaranteed Income Doesn't progressive income tax make UBI progressive? But yes we should fund this with a LVT not VAT.

by rcpt 7y ago

marcosdumay 7y ago
VAT is a highly efficient tax, very hard to game. But it's regressive. If you couple it with an UBI, you can fix the regressivity, and keep all the good parts. It's a way to make VAT good, not a way to make UBI good.
- stazz1 7y ago
  Right on. What does "regressive" mean in this context?
  - marcosdumay 7y ago
    Poor people pay a higher share of their income than rich people.
    - stazz1 7y ago
      Ah, yes that is 100% true and likely to be true of any VAT implementation that hits consumer goods. If a VAT could hit B2B transactions only, it could be possible to "tax the tech companies"
      - marcosdumay 7y ago
        The beauty of a VAT is that there is nobody determining the difference between consumers and business, it's just transactions all the way down, with later ones verifying the earlier ones. If you start adding rules, it will stop working.
stazz1 7y ago
Progressive Income Tax on UBI != Progressive Guaranteed Income. For one, think about China back in the day when people all gave blood to the same vat, and then some contaminated blood caused some otherwise healthy people to get ungood diseases. Why collect first + distribute when there is cost in collection and cost in distribution? Just because I can move the fridge around my house all day does not mean it will not tire me out for other tasks. Same deal, money dries up in converting between "types" so it's not smart to Collect + Progressively Tax. Minimize motion, that's how you close the inequality gap, not by adding more oxygen-exposed piping that can be funneled, embezzled, exploited, and ridiculed. Compare: PGI means only some people get a monthly check for Basic Income, and its based on how much you earned (this year, last year) and you can future-withdraw from what you would get next year, take too much and you owe it. It's even smaller than the social security office and would actually close the inequality gap. If you consider the most naive argument: the absolute amount of paper is minimized, that might be a simpler way to approach how collect+distribute techniques lose a lot of velocity to friction. Trying UBI with Progressive Tax is also not the same because one is multiplication and one is linear addition. $1000 to someone wealthy is not going to move the needle, but for someone at the bottom of the barrel it will move the needle a great deal, maybe even multiple indicators will move for them at that point. Thus, money is not linearly equal, its value depends largely on how much you have already.

> Progressive Guaranteed Income Doesn't progressive income tax make UBI progressive? But yes we should fund this with a LVT not VAT.

by rcpt 7y ago

> Progressive Guaranteed Income Doesn't progressive income tax make UBI progressive? But yes we should fund this with a LVT not VAT.

marcosdumay 7y ago

VAT is a highly efficient tax, very hard to game. But it's regressive. If you couple it with an UBI, you can fix the regressivity, and keep all the good parts. It's a way to make VAT good, not a way to make UBI good.

stazz1 7y ago
Right on. What does "regressive" mean in this context?
- marcosdumay 7y ago
  Poor people pay a higher share of their income than rich people.
  - stazz1 7y ago
    Ah, yes that is 100% true and likely to be true of any VAT implementation that hits consumer goods. If a VAT could hit B2B transactions only, it could be possible to "tax the tech companies"
    - marcosdumay 7y ago
      The beauty of a VAT is that there is nobody determining the difference between consumers and business, it's just transactions all the way down, with later ones verifying the earlier ones. If you start adding rules, it will stop working.

stazz1 7y ago

Progressive Income Tax on UBI != Progressive Guaranteed Income. For one, think about China back in the day when people all gave blood to the same vat, and then some contaminated blood caused some otherwise healthy people to get ungood diseases. Why collect first + distribute when there is cost in collection and cost in distribution? Just because I can move the fridge around my house all day does not mean it will not tire me out for other tasks. Same deal, money dries up in converting between "types" so it's not smart to Collect + Progressively Tax. Minimize motion, that's how you close the inequality gap, not by adding more oxygen-exposed piping that can be funneled, embezzled, exploited, and ridiculed. Compare: PGI means only some people get a monthly check for Basic Income, and its based on how much you earned (this year, last year) and you can future-withdraw from what you would get next year, take too much and you owe it. It's even smaller than the social security office and would actually close the inequality gap. If you consider the most naive argument: the absolute amount of paper is minimized, that might be a simpler way to approach how collect+distribute techniques lose a lot of velocity to friction. Trying UBI with Progressive Tax is also not the same because one is multiplication and one is linear addition. $1000 to someone wealthy is not going to move the needle, but for someone at the bottom of the barrel it will move the needle a great deal, maybe even multiple indicators will move for them at that point. Thus, money is not linearly equal, its value depends largely on how much you have already.