4 ms·

I support the idea of UBI in principle, but I think it needs to be combined with a land value tax in order to work as intended. Rents are charged at the highest

I support the idea of UBI in principle, but I think it needs to be combined with a land value tax in order to work as intended. Rents are charged at the highest the market will bear, so the UBI could just flow into the hands of landlords, and the people who it is supposed to help being no better off.

wildrhythms 6y ago
I'm not convinced that UBI doesn't just continue funneling money from the hands of working class people to the existing billionaire class. UBI doesn't guarantee housing, UBI doesn't guarantee healthcare, UBI doesn't guarantee college. Even with UBI, the existing 1% would continue to sit on more wealth than the entire working class combined.
- adventured 6y ago
  What the UBI proponents are really simultaneously suggesting, is total regulation of all aspects of life and economy - which is a necessary consequence, as you've noted given the obvious outcomes of UBI. If you give everyone UBI, dramatically boosting incomes, in order to achieve the desired net gains in quality of life for the lower classes you will have to drastically increase the regulation of all prices, all assets, all economy, all consumer activity, all production in order to attempt to control the negative consequences of UBI. This attempt will fail horrifically, resulting in catastrophic destruction to the economy. We've already solved the quality of life problems that UBI claims to solve: countries like Finland, Germany, Austria, Denmark, Japan, Australia, Sweden, Canada solved it to a large degree long ago, entirely without UBI. They have relatively extraordinary standards of living, and have made extraordinary progress over the last half century. We already know how to do it, we already have something that works, and we should be focused on improving that further. At its best UBI is entirely unnecessary.
  - jdashg 6y ago
    That is not what UBI proponents are really simultaneously suggesting.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- bhupy 6y ago
  I'll try and reframe your argument using slightly less incendiary verbiage. UBI will continue to funnel money from the hands of consumers to the existing producers. Even with UBI, the existing producers would sit on more wealth than the entire consumer-class combined. That producers are the ones that become billionaires is a feature of our society, not a bug. That anyone who is not a producer is at risk of starving to death is a bug of our society, and it's the bug that a UBI aims to solve. Also these groups aren't static. Even today, who is in the top 1% changes every ~10 years. With a UBI, the mobility within those groups may be even more dynamic. A net-consumer that has the time and space to improve their skills that also doesn't need to worry about starving to death has a much higher likelihood of eventually becoming a net-producer than the same individual today. > UBI doesn't guarantee housing, UBI doesn't guarantee healthcare, UBI doesn't guarantee college You're right about this, and a UBI is useless unless it's also accompanied with reforms to address the rising cost of all of those things.
  - wildrhythms 6y ago
    Do you sincerely believe that UBI is the difference between a working class individual and a billionaire? Let's assume that UBI spurs previously non-business owners to become business owners. Without a severe economic system change, like draconian oversight on acquisitions, how would you expect a sudden surge of presumed new businesses to not be immediately gobbled up by the existing defacto monopolies in their respective sectors?
    - bhupy 6y ago
      > Do you sincerely believe that UBI is the difference between a working class individual and a billionaire? Um, no? I don't know where I suggested that. All I said was that while UBI further enriches the producers of the world (who are overwhelmingly likely to be billionaires), it at least ensures that non-producers aren't at risk of dipping below some minimum standard of living. > how would you expect a sudden surge of presumed new businesses to not be immediately gobbled up by the existing defacto monopolies in their respective sectors? I wouldn't necessarily expect that — all that's being suggested is that it improves economic mobility because it allows a member of the working class to decide to take on the arts or entrepreneurship without worrying about starvation or going into credit card debt. That's the thesis behind any form of welfare, be it government-provided services or straight cash. Also, most monopolies eventually reach obsolescence and die out or cease to be monopolies. It happened to DEC, IBM, Microsoft (which, hilariously avoided anti-trust scrutiny in 2020 through the genius move of not creating a business with dominant market share since Office). Not all monopolies engage in acquisitions — even non FAANG companies have M&A operations. Acquisitions can also be a good way for founders / early employees to realize wealth, which is especially beneficial in a UBI regime where entrepreneurial risk taking isn't life threatening. M&A and anti-trust has a lot of nuance. It's complicated.
mythrwy 6y ago
Land and resource taxes replacing all taxation would solve a lot of problems in general in my opinion. We'd punish wasteful consumption and resource speculation and reward productivity (by not taxing it!)
kamaal 6y ago
Why is that wrong? Given you will have progressive taxes. Land lords will be paying for your UBI more than others would will be paying for it. The idea is here is not to punish the rich. But it's more on the lines of ensuring every one has something to rely on if they don't have a job.
- burlesona 6y ago
  It’s wrong because it’s inefficient and leaves the UBI recipient no better off. In San Francisco, as an example, rental rates track remarkably close to the after-tax first paycheck of the month for the median tech worker. Every year rents and salaries go up in lock step. At the end of the day only the landlords are wealthier. If UBI were X per month, we would see rents go up by X very very quickly. This is just what happens when a real estate market is inefficient and supply constrained. Land value tax punishes the underutilization of land, creating a reason for property owners to redevelop underutilized land and add more supply. It also creates an incentive for the average homeowner to be more amenable to extra housing, as that homeowner doesn’t want their taxes going up due to increased land value. You can see this in practice in Texas vs California. Texas has very high properly taxes (2.5-3%) and reassesses annually. California taxes are closer to 1% and essentially locked at the purchase price of your home no matter how much if appreciates. As a result, homeowners in Texas are a lot more supportive of new housing compared to those in California who almost universally oppose it.

wildrhythms 6y ago

I'm not convinced that UBI doesn't just continue funneling money from the hands of working class people to the existing billionaire class. UBI doesn't guarantee housing, UBI doesn't guarantee healthcare, UBI doesn't guarantee college. Even with UBI, the existing 1% would continue to sit on more wealth than the entire working class combined.

adventured 6y ago
What the UBI proponents are really simultaneously suggesting, is total regulation of all aspects of life and economy - which is a necessary consequence, as you've noted given the obvious outcomes of UBI. If you give everyone UBI, dramatically boosting incomes, in order to achieve the desired net gains in quality of life for the lower classes you will have to drastically increase the regulation of all prices, all assets, all economy, all consumer activity, all production in order to attempt to control the negative consequences of UBI. This attempt will fail horrifically, resulting in catastrophic destruction to the economy. We've already solved the quality of life problems that UBI claims to solve: countries like Finland, Germany, Austria, Denmark, Japan, Australia, Sweden, Canada solved it to a large degree long ago, entirely without UBI. They have relatively extraordinary standards of living, and have made extraordinary progress over the last half century. We already know how to do it, we already have something that works, and we should be focused on improving that further. At its best UBI is entirely unnecessary.
- jdashg 6y ago
  That is not what UBI proponents are really simultaneously suggesting.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
bhupy 6y ago
I'll try and reframe your argument using slightly less incendiary verbiage. UBI will continue to funnel money from the hands of consumers to the existing producers. Even with UBI, the existing producers would sit on more wealth than the entire consumer-class combined. That producers are the ones that become billionaires is a feature of our society, not a bug. That anyone who is not a producer is at risk of starving to death is a bug of our society, and it's the bug that a UBI aims to solve. Also these groups aren't static. Even today, who is in the top 1% changes every ~10 years. With a UBI, the mobility within those groups may be even more dynamic. A net-consumer that has the time and space to improve their skills that also doesn't need to worry about starving to death has a much higher likelihood of eventually becoming a net-producer than the same individual today. > UBI doesn't guarantee housing, UBI doesn't guarantee healthcare, UBI doesn't guarantee college You're right about this, and a UBI is useless unless it's also accompanied with reforms to address the rising cost of all of those things.
- wildrhythms 6y ago
  Do you sincerely believe that UBI is the difference between a working class individual and a billionaire? Let's assume that UBI spurs previously non-business owners to become business owners. Without a severe economic system change, like draconian oversight on acquisitions, how would you expect a sudden surge of presumed new businesses to not be immediately gobbled up by the existing defacto monopolies in their respective sectors?
  - bhupy 6y ago
    > Do you sincerely believe that UBI is the difference between a working class individual and a billionaire? Um, no? I don't know where I suggested that. All I said was that while UBI further enriches the producers of the world (who are overwhelmingly likely to be billionaires), it at least ensures that non-producers aren't at risk of dipping below some minimum standard of living. > how would you expect a sudden surge of presumed new businesses to not be immediately gobbled up by the existing defacto monopolies in their respective sectors? I wouldn't necessarily expect that — all that's being suggested is that it improves economic mobility because it allows a member of the working class to decide to take on the arts or entrepreneurship without worrying about starvation or going into credit card debt. That's the thesis behind any form of welfare, be it government-provided services or straight cash. Also, most monopolies eventually reach obsolescence and die out or cease to be monopolies. It happened to DEC, IBM, Microsoft (which, hilariously avoided anti-trust scrutiny in 2020 through the genius move of not creating a business with dominant market share since Office). Not all monopolies engage in acquisitions — even non FAANG companies have M&A operations. Acquisitions can also be a good way for founders / early employees to realize wealth, which is especially beneficial in a UBI regime where entrepreneurial risk taking isn't life threatening. M&A and anti-trust has a lot of nuance. It's complicated.

mythrwy 6y ago

Land and resource taxes replacing all taxation would solve a lot of problems in general in my opinion. We'd punish wasteful consumption and resource speculation and reward productivity (by not taxing it!)

kamaal 6y ago

Why is that wrong? Given you will have progressive taxes. Land lords will be paying for your UBI more than others would will be paying for it. The idea is here is not to punish the rich. But it's more on the lines of ensuring every one has something to rely on if they don't have a job.

burlesona 6y ago
It’s wrong because it’s inefficient and leaves the UBI recipient no better off. In San Francisco, as an example, rental rates track remarkably close to the after-tax first paycheck of the month for the median tech worker. Every year rents and salaries go up in lock step. At the end of the day only the landlords are wealthier. If UBI were X per month, we would see rents go up by X very very quickly. This is just what happens when a real estate market is inefficient and supply constrained. Land value tax punishes the underutilization of land, creating a reason for property owners to redevelop underutilized land and add more supply. It also creates an incentive for the average homeowner to be more amenable to extra housing, as that homeowner doesn’t want their taxes going up due to increased land value. You can see this in practice in Texas vs California. Texas has very high properly taxes (2.5-3%) and reassesses annually. California taxes are closer to 1% and essentially locked at the purchase price of your home no matter how much if appreciates. As a result, homeowners in Texas are a lot more supportive of new housing compared to those in California who almost universally oppose it.