4 ms·
A while ago I wrote up what I think is the perfect UBI: Summary A new flat tax on all income, in addition to existing taxes. Distributions are exactly equal
by Nifty3929 4y ago
A while ago I wrote up what I think is the perfect UBI:
Summary
A new flat tax on all income, in addition to existing taxes.
Distributions are exactly equal to all people
Tax revenue is set aside for immediate redistribution. It never touches the general budget
Distributions are based exactly on the revenue from the tax. There is no commitment to any particular amount
Details
The tax would be a percentage of income that is the same for everybody. No brackets or exemptions. 10% might be a good place to start.
All Income must be included in the taxable amount, including payments from this program. No exceptions. It particular it would include capital gains, dividends and carried interest. ALL income from ALL sources.
The definition of ‘person’ who is eligible would require a bit of thought. At a minimum, all adult citizens should be included. Whether to include children or various types of non-citizens is debatable. In any case, anyone eligible for distribution must also pay the tax.
Tax is set aside for immediate redistribution (say, monthly). It never touches the general budget. It requires no ongoing authorization. It never gets invested in anything (definitely not government bonds) or held for any substantial length of time.
The calculations on which the payments are made might happen somewhat less frequently than the payments themselves, for example annual calculations but monthly payments. This probably makes things a bit more stable for people in the short-term.
Let’s not create a new administrative agency, let’s just use the Social Security Office. They’ve been doing a fine-enough job distributing cash to millions of Americans and have all the infrastructure in place. And this program is similar to SSI anyway.
Advantages:
The system is self-adjusting. Because there is no guaranteed payment amount and it’s based just on the amount collected from the tax, then as people work less, the payment will be lower and people at the margin will more likely choose to work, pushing the tax revenue back up. As more people work, the tax and corresponding payments go up. There will always be some free riders – but that’s a feature, not a bug. If you have enough money and don’t want to work anymore – then don’t. That’s okay. The important thing is that because this program wouldn’t be means-tested, then there is never a dis-incentive to working more if you want more money. This contrasts with something like unemployment insurance and all other means-tested government programs, which DO penalize you for working more, by reducing or eliminating your benefit.
Not subject to the whims of politicians. Because the revenue from the tax never enters the general budget or is invested in any way, there is no way for politicians to use it for their own ends, or to tie it up in political battles.
It preserves freedom and dignity. An important part of being a free person is the ability to choose for yourself. It’s something that many of us take for granted, but any program that comes with strings attached, vouchers, subsidies or earmarks is a way for politicians and bureaucrats to control what the beneficiaries do and thereby take away their freedoms, dignity and basic humanity. Distributions from this program will be made equally to all, with no strings. People have the dignity and responsibility to choose for themselves.
- scotty79 4y agoThat won't work because landlords will immediately capture all UBI. We can't have UBI without stirring housing considerably. So I propose progressive real estate tax. The more property you own (directly or through subsidiaries) the higher percentage of its value you pay every year as a tax. As a result of this, large property owners should start dropping properties on the market like hot potatoes making housing affordable and the tax can be used to finance UBI to help poor people pay for mortgages which will make becoming propery owner even easier. Detaching it from income can ease the decision who should get it. Anyone with a pulse is fine The rest of your ideas are fine, like separate bucket and no commitments.
- gremlinsinc 4y agoThis sounds good, or maybe having a land-value tax mixed in as well, I've heard different ways that might look, but this would definitely help more with making home prices attainable, even without paying for UBI, this would be a win because more houses would become residential and less investments (via airbnb, etc). I also think airbnb should require some sort of hospitality license or something, or require the landlord live within a block of the property or have a main house on the acreage they own, etc.
- scotty79 4y agoYou could base it all up on property value. If the property includes land then the land value is also included. Main challenges of this system would be tracking property ownership and property prices. Personally I'd prefer to avoid doing too much work like issuing licences, or policing what small owners can do with their properties. However things that are being done like tracking ownership, pricing for the purposes of tax and collecting tax should be done as simply as possible and ruthlessly. So the market can figure what's optimal in this new reality. In a decade we could check if further tuning is necessary.
- notahacker 4y ago> The system is self-adjusting. Because there is no guaranteed payment amount and it’s based just on the amount collected from the tax, then as people work less, the payment will be lower and people at the margin will more likely choose to work, pushing the tax revenue back up. Those people at the margins are going into minimum wage jobs, and contributing only ~10% of that minimum wage towards the budget, which gets redistributed to everyone. That's not going likely to push a below-subsistence income level very much at all, and in practice the causality is more likely to work the other way round (tax receipts drops in a recession along with employment opportunities; the benefit payouts decrease at the time people are most likely to need it). If the plan is in addition to welfare payments people depend upon to live on, that may be less of an issue. If it isn't, then some of the people that most need it are going to be worse off.