3 ms·
Yeah, many of the quoted examples miss the “universal” part: > recurring cash relief to low-income residents for 2 years > Finland launched a program to give
by paulgb 3y ago
Yeah, many of the quoted examples miss the “universal” part:
> recurring cash relief to low-income residents for 2 years
> Finland launched a program to give €560 ($616) a month to 2,000 unemployed citizens
> doled out monthly unconditional sums of $500 to 125 low-income participants for two years
My contention with UBI is that if you give cash to everybody, it ends up being largely a wealth transfer to the rent seekers in society who can just raise their prices because more cash is now chasing the same amount of supply.
- eutropia 3y agoThis is why you should couple UBI with an eye-wateringly (90-95%) high tax on Land rents, (i.e, the value of the unimproved raw resource. "Land" is more than just plots of terrain: Mineral, Water, and Wildlife/Fishing rights - along with radio spectrum, etc all fall into this category.) Improvements and value-adds from human activity remain profitable, gatekeeping access to resources is not. Economically speaking, your ability to compete for the extra disposable income is the same as anyone else's, but that money originated in the taxed rent from the Land you control, and any elasticity in demand for your Land caused by the increase in cash running around is priced in - if more people need what you have, your taxes increase along with it. What remains for you to profit from is what service or value you add above and beyond the market value of the underlying Land.