5 ms·

Your suggestion has the same problems as most basic income proposals. 1) The numbers don't work out. Even a very steep CO2 tax will produce too little revenue

by effn 13y ago

Your suggestion has the same problems as most basic income proposals. 1) The numbers don't work out. Even a very steep CO2 tax will produce too little revenue for any form of meaningful BI. 2) The money collected on the CO2 tax could also be used for a general tax cut. So you still have the political problem of explaining to working middle class why their money is being handed out to lazy bums.

milesskorpen 13y ago
1) There are increasingly few people in the middle class 2) Very few poor people are lazy bums, in my experience. There "lazy bums" are also sometimes the people creating amazing music, Wikipedia, or other valuable (and un-monetized) cultural products 3) The author didn't specify a time period, simply that given the capital > labor trend, a BI will be necessary if we don't want absolute and complete inequality
btilly 13y ago
1) The numbers don't work out. Even a very steep CO2 tax will produce too little revenue for any form of meaningful BI. The USA currently consumes about 450 billion gallons of petroleum products per year, which is about 1.5 trillion pounds. We also mine about a billion short tons of coal per year, which is 2 trillion pounds. We have about 300 million people. Taxing $0.75/pound on carbon fuels would generate a bit over $6k/year per man, woman and child. That's $4.5/gallon. This is enough to put a family of 4 at about $25K/year in basic income, which is just above the poverty line this year. There is enough revenue. You just have to accept a higher tax. 2) The money collected on the CO2 tax could also be used for a general tax cut. So you still have the political problem of explaining to working middle class why their money is being handed out to lazy bums. The middle class receives the money as well. This kind of program - where everyone pays and everyone receives - has proven very popular in the past. See social security for a demonstration.
- ianburrell 13y ago
  Your carbon tax of $1500/ton of carbon is a couple of orders of magnitude bigger than any proposed carbon tax. Proposals are for $20/ton to reduce greehouse gas emissions to targets. Estimates of the social cost of carbon dioxide range from $50 to $200 per ton.
  - btilly 13y ago
    The level that I suggested is not out of line with what is already accepted as customary in many European countries. And the net impact on most would be minimal because the cost is returned fairly directly to the people paying it.

by effn 13y ago

milesskorpen 13y ago

1) There are increasingly few people in the middle class 2) Very few poor people are lazy bums, in my experience. There "lazy bums" are also sometimes the people creating amazing music, Wikipedia, or other valuable (and un-monetized) cultural products 3) The author didn't specify a time period, simply that given the capital > labor trend, a BI will be necessary if we don't want absolute and complete inequality

btilly 13y ago

1) The numbers don't work out. Even a very steep CO2 tax will produce too little revenue for any form of meaningful BI. The USA currently consumes about 450 billion gallons of petroleum products per year, which is about 1.5 trillion pounds. We also mine about a billion short tons of coal per year, which is 2 trillion pounds. We have about 300 million people. Taxing $0.75/pound on carbon fuels would generate a bit over $6k/year per man, woman and child. That's $4.5/gallon. This is enough to put a family of 4 at about $25K/year in basic income, which is just above the poverty line this year. There is enough revenue. You just have to accept a higher tax. 2) The money collected on the CO2 tax could also be used for a general tax cut. So you still have the political problem of explaining to working middle class why their money is being handed out to lazy bums. The middle class receives the money as well. This kind of program - where everyone pays and everyone receives - has proven very popular in the past. See social security for a demonstration.

ianburrell 13y ago
Your carbon tax of $1500/ton of carbon is a couple of orders of magnitude bigger than any proposed carbon tax. Proposals are for $20/ton to reduce greehouse gas emissions to targets. Estimates of the social cost of carbon dioxide range from $50 to $200 per ton.
- btilly 13y ago
  The level that I suggested is not out of line with what is already accepted as customary in many European countries. And the net impact on most would be minimal because the cost is returned fairly directly to the people paying it.