3 ms·

It would be interesting to see somewhere try this, because I'm sure it would generate very different incentives than regular welfare. Some people will definitel

It would be interesting to see somewhere try this, because I'm sure it would generate very different incentives than regular welfare. Some people will definitely walk out of work permanently and just live off the freebie. Others will use it for a few months to rest between jobs. This would make the ramen-eating phase of doing a startup much easier, and the same for any creative endeavour that can be done cheaply but takes time. I wonder if there would be an explosion of art? Unlike with regular welfare, there's a clear feedback loop between the amount of freebie, the number of people "retiring", and the extra tax burden placed on the people still working. At some level of income, this freebie would make working unattractive enough the system would collapse for lack of taxpayers. So there is going to be a continuous fight to keep the level at a sufficient pain point, versus humanitarians who point to the suffering this will cause.

Retric 17y ago
I always liked the idea with a slight twist. A flat ~10% tax that's split back to everyone in society. If you consider the cost of SS, welfare, and the long term effects of increasing automation. I would assume it's a fairly stable system until people start messing with the percentage. This would also make it reasonable to switch to a flat tax with zero tax breaks.
- eru 17y ago
  Yes, it should be stable, because when enough people go voluntarily out of work, the pie gets smaller and so get the 10%. There's an interesting suggestion by some landreformers of the late 19th / early 20th century. They say that the rent from land comes ultimately from the population density, so all land should be owned by community, but leased out to the highest bidder. The proceeds would be distributed equally to all. (Alternatively you can just have a high tax on real estate, that gets redistributed. Make it say, 10% of the value of the land anually. Owners get to announce the value of their land themself, but will have to sell their land at this value to any party, to avoid them setting too low a price. Of course the value of the land will be changed by the tax.)

Retric 17y ago

I always liked the idea with a slight twist. A flat ~10% tax that's split back to everyone in society. If you consider the cost of SS, welfare, and the long term effects of increasing automation. I would assume it's a fairly stable system until people start messing with the percentage. This would also make it reasonable to switch to a flat tax with zero tax breaks.

eru 17y ago
Yes, it should be stable, because when enough people go voluntarily out of work, the pie gets smaller and so get the 10%. There's an interesting suggestion by some landreformers of the late 19th / early 20th century. They say that the rent from land comes ultimately from the population density, so all land should be owned by community, but leased out to the highest bidder. The proceeds would be distributed equally to all. (Alternatively you can just have a high tax on real estate, that gets redistributed. Make it say, 10% of the value of the land anually. Owners get to announce the value of their land themself, but will have to sell their land at this value to any party, to avoid them setting too low a price. Of course the value of the land will be changed by the tax.)