4 ms·

A tax is needed to raise the money for the UBI, and to keep the value and money supply stable. Income tax is unnecessary if you say money that's sitting doing n

A tax is needed to raise the money for the UBI, and to keep the value and money supply stable. Income tax is unnecessary if you say money that's sitting doing nothing will be taxed out of the system (basically a waste tax). The whole system is being taxed away at 1% per month to pay for the UBI. If you spend, lend, or invest your money as soon as you get it, you never pay taxes. There's a neat equilibrium here. UBI is put in, but slowly being taxed away while it sits. If your account is zero, you're not paying any tax, and the account grows quicker. The more your account grows, the slower your account grows, and your account growth keeps slowing until it stops at equilibrium. The amount of UBI being put in matches the amount of tax being pulled out. It's an advantage to use the money rather than save it, because you're being taxed on less money.

scotty79 4y ago
I propose progressive real estate tax to finance UBI. If you have a lot of property, it costs you more to pay the tax on it than it would cost if the ownership of those properties was split between many smaller owners. Obviously property owned by you includes properties owned by your subsiduaries so you can't fake-split ownership. This tax apart from financing UBI will encourage small real estate ownership and will curb the effect where UBI is sucked away by landlords just raising the rent. Calculation could be fairly easy. To get progressive tax you just take currently tax paid by you and your subsidiaries on the property you own, raise it to some power, like 1.2 (should be fine-tuned), and deduct progressive tax that your subsidiaries pay on that property. I think that should work. Maybe there are better methods? You could gradually raise the factor over months and years so that large property owners have time to unload and you can control drop in real estate prices due to that.
- nealbozeman 4y ago
  It's a private CBDC, so a private CBDC couldn't collect on property tax. Anyway, I'm considering only dead-simple ways to fund the UBI, which means tapping in to all money across the system continuously, evenly.
  - scotty79 4y ago
    Ah, right. Good luck! CB in CBDC means central bank ... I thought it was a theoretical excercise from the point of view of a state actor. I don't think it can be done privately. To distribute value as UBI you must first acquire value and digital currencies have only one way of acquiring value, by drawing in greedy capitalists with ponzi-like promises of huge gains coming from widespread adoption by whatever suckers they can find. So booting up your currency would be a problem because initially it would have zero value. I wonder what could be other ways of transferring value into a new currency apart from promises of meteoric rise of the price. Other idea is what tether did. Getting value into their currency by promising price stability. Then the other qualities of crypto like ease if transaction and direct untaxability drew the value to it as long as the promise holds.
WantonQuantum 4y ago
How do you identify me and stop me from claiming multiple UBIs? If someone with no money benefits the most from UBI then my optimal strategy is to be as many people as possible, each with no money.
- nealbozeman 4y ago
  Yep, this is why it has to be centralized. The Central Bank has to verify identities. You can have accounts that are unverified, or business accounts that are not individuals. They just don't have a UBI, so the tax hits them without their accounts getting replenished. Spend/use the money fast so you don't have to worry about it.
notahacker 4y ago
> If your account is zero, you're not paying any tax, and the account grows quicker. So the best strategy for any individual to maximise their accumulation in your currency (or in practice, minimise their losses) is to refuse to accept payments into their account, insisting on receiving payments in other currencies instead. As everyone is incentivised to refuse your currency and nobody is incentivised or required to accept it, your currency can't actually be spent.
- imtringued 4y ago
  Except that isn't how trade or currencies work. This is overly simplistic. You want a currency that people want to both spend and earn. If you have a deflating currency then people would rather earn it than spend it, if you have an inflating currency then people would rather spend it than earn it. You might now argue that the rate of inflation or deflation should be set by the market to find the optimal money tax that balances willingness to spend and receive money. But here is the thing. If the rate of the national currency is suboptimal people will try to find substitutes. If the central bank tightens the money supply too much and unemployment is too high, then people will also accept this alternate currency because they are going to spend most of it anyway, they won't be paying much tax to begin with. Also, from what I have seen the fees people are willing to pay on credit cards are quite ridiculous compared to the -5% demurrage of the chiemgauer. The Chiemgauer circulates 3.5 times faster than the euro so the effective fee is something like 1.25% which is less than credit card fees. Unless you are filthy rich and keep all your savings as liquid money instead of lending it out the fee is basically irrelevant. Once you take into account that lending at 0% interest is possible then from a macroeconomic perspective the system is cheaper for the average participant and if we assume economical stability promises become true then even the wealthy with who insist on holding money will benefit because banks are less likely to need a bailout and there is no inflation. So the problem isn't that people will refuse to accept it, the question is how do you get it started in the first place. How do you convince a critical mass of people to adopt it?
  - nealbozeman 4y ago
    Well said, and fun example with Chiemgauer. Critical mass/tipping point is the issue, so what is the target audience in the beginning? Ping me if you want some Metrics. Neal@metricdc.org.

scotty79 4y ago

I propose progressive real estate tax to finance UBI. If you have a lot of property, it costs you more to pay the tax on it than it would cost if the ownership of those properties was split between many smaller owners. Obviously property owned by you includes properties owned by your subsiduaries so you can't fake-split ownership. This tax apart from financing UBI will encourage small real estate ownership and will curb the effect where UBI is sucked away by landlords just raising the rent. Calculation could be fairly easy. To get progressive tax you just take currently tax paid by you and your subsidiaries on the property you own, raise it to some power, like 1.2 (should be fine-tuned), and deduct progressive tax that your subsidiaries pay on that property. I think that should work. Maybe there are better methods? You could gradually raise the factor over months and years so that large property owners have time to unload and you can control drop in real estate prices due to that.

nealbozeman 4y ago
It's a private CBDC, so a private CBDC couldn't collect on property tax. Anyway, I'm considering only dead-simple ways to fund the UBI, which means tapping in to all money across the system continuously, evenly.
- scotty79 4y ago
  Ah, right. Good luck! CB in CBDC means central bank ... I thought it was a theoretical excercise from the point of view of a state actor. I don't think it can be done privately. To distribute value as UBI you must first acquire value and digital currencies have only one way of acquiring value, by drawing in greedy capitalists with ponzi-like promises of huge gains coming from widespread adoption by whatever suckers they can find. So booting up your currency would be a problem because initially it would have zero value. I wonder what could be other ways of transferring value into a new currency apart from promises of meteoric rise of the price. Other idea is what tether did. Getting value into their currency by promising price stability. Then the other qualities of crypto like ease if transaction and direct untaxability drew the value to it as long as the promise holds.

WantonQuantum 4y ago

How do you identify me and stop me from claiming multiple UBIs? If someone with no money benefits the most from UBI then my optimal strategy is to be as many people as possible, each with no money.

nealbozeman 4y ago
Yep, this is why it has to be centralized. The Central Bank has to verify identities. You can have accounts that are unverified, or business accounts that are not individuals. They just don't have a UBI, so the tax hits them without their accounts getting replenished. Spend/use the money fast so you don't have to worry about it.

notahacker 4y ago

> If your account is zero, you're not paying any tax, and the account grows quicker. So the best strategy for any individual to maximise their accumulation in your currency (or in practice, minimise their losses) is to refuse to accept payments into their account, insisting on receiving payments in other currencies instead. As everyone is incentivised to refuse your currency and nobody is incentivised or required to accept it, your currency can't actually be spent.

imtringued 4y ago
Except that isn't how trade or currencies work. This is overly simplistic. You want a currency that people want to both spend and earn. If you have a deflating currency then people would rather earn it than spend it, if you have an inflating currency then people would rather spend it than earn it. You might now argue that the rate of inflation or deflation should be set by the market to find the optimal money tax that balances willingness to spend and receive money. But here is the thing. If the rate of the national currency is suboptimal people will try to find substitutes. If the central bank tightens the money supply too much and unemployment is too high, then people will also accept this alternate currency because they are going to spend most of it anyway, they won't be paying much tax to begin with. Also, from what I have seen the fees people are willing to pay on credit cards are quite ridiculous compared to the -5% demurrage of the chiemgauer. The Chiemgauer circulates 3.5 times faster than the euro so the effective fee is something like 1.25% which is less than credit card fees. Unless you are filthy rich and keep all your savings as liquid money instead of lending it out the fee is basically irrelevant. Once you take into account that lending at 0% interest is possible then from a macroeconomic perspective the system is cheaper for the average participant and if we assume economical stability promises become true then even the wealthy with who insist on holding money will benefit because banks are less likely to need a bailout and there is no inflation. So the problem isn't that people will refuse to accept it, the question is how do you get it started in the first place. How do you convince a critical mass of people to adopt it?
- nealbozeman 4y ago
  Well said, and fun example with Chiemgauer. Critical mass/tipping point is the issue, so what is the target audience in the beginning? Ping me if you want some Metrics. Neal@metricdc.org.