4 ms·

You are right, this is under-discussed. Look at what happened to higher education with all the "free" money. We don't want slumlords just raising prices to capt

You are right, this is under-discussed. Look at what happened to higher education with all the "free" money. We don't want slumlords just raising prices to capture this money. It could be that if you if you are in a program like this that the rent have to be regulated based on size and location. In my opinion, UBI can never really work, but there is no reason we can't reduce/eliminate taxes on the poor to increase their standard of living.

eru 7y ago
Land value tax would be the way to go. Regulating the rent would be about as useful and effective as existing rent control schemes.. With a land value tax, the rent would still go up, but the increase would mostly be recycled back into tax take. (And you can use that tax take to eg finance (part of) the UBI.)
- sokoloff 7y ago
  If you intend to tax away all the advantages of providing additional housing supply, I’d expect smart landlords to not increase housing supply.
  - eru 7y ago
    Yes, that's a big part of why rent control doesn't work well. A land value tax is levied on the value of the unimproved land in a specific plot. Whether you leave the land fallow or build 30 storeys of luxury condominiums on it, the amount of dollars you have to pay in taxes doesn't change. So the (additional) housing supply is completely untaxed. What is taxed however is the following: If the town gets a new highway or airport, and that raises land prices, that gets taxed. Same for a UBI. (To pre-empt the next discussion: it's not completely trivial to separate the value of the building from the value of the land. But it can be done. Insurance companies do it routinely. And there are a variety of strategies to make the assessment that are hard to game or cheat.)
pietrovismara 7y ago
Wouldn't reducing/eliminating taxes have the same exact effect as an UBI? More money in people's pockets. By following your logic no form of welfare can work.
- sokoloff 7y ago
  Tax settlement is done once per year. Monthly UBI both feels different and is practically different in terms of helping people have money throughout the year.

eru 7y ago

Land value tax would be the way to go. Regulating the rent would be about as useful and effective as existing rent control schemes.. With a land value tax, the rent would still go up, but the increase would mostly be recycled back into tax take. (And you can use that tax take to eg finance (part of) the UBI.)

sokoloff 7y ago
If you intend to tax away all the advantages of providing additional housing supply, I’d expect smart landlords to not increase housing supply.
- eru 7y ago
  Yes, that's a big part of why rent control doesn't work well. A land value tax is levied on the value of the unimproved land in a specific plot. Whether you leave the land fallow or build 30 storeys of luxury condominiums on it, the amount of dollars you have to pay in taxes doesn't change. So the (additional) housing supply is completely untaxed. What is taxed however is the following: If the town gets a new highway or airport, and that raises land prices, that gets taxed. Same for a UBI. (To pre-empt the next discussion: it's not completely trivial to separate the value of the building from the value of the land. But it can be done. Insurance companies do it routinely. And there are a variety of strategies to make the assessment that are hard to game or cheat.)

pietrovismara 7y ago

Wouldn't reducing/eliminating taxes have the same exact effect as an UBI? More money in people's pockets. By following your logic no form of welfare can work.

sokoloff 7y ago
Tax settlement is done once per year. Monthly UBI both feels different and is practically different in terms of helping people have money throughout the year.