Can someone actually explain what Sam wants to do here? I've read the post 4 times and I still can't see an y sort of plan, numbers, etc to actually critique,
Which is odd because he specifically ask you to give feedback but never follows through on presenting the actual idea.
He does motivate why he thinks a share of the GDP is so he gets the why, but never actually gets into the what, and how.
I mean the GDP isn't just something you can siphon off money from and give it to someone as it's not a thing that anyone owns.
So if you want to give out a portion of the GDP, I think what he really means is pay a universal income that is locked to GDP growth, but he never really says this.
> Can someone actually explain what Sam wants to do here? I've read the post 4 times and I still can't see an y sort of plan
Run for office perhaps. In other words, if you can't discern a plan, maybe the post is more about Sam than it is about a plan.
(NOTE: I do think he has a plan here, just very back of the envelope. I think he's mulling over ways to incrementally roll out UBI, which if you think UBI is a good idea, figuring out an incrementalist approach is hugely crucial, important work. I don't think UBI is a good idea, but I do think this post is about a real thought and not just Sam posing or something. I have faith that there's real intellectual sincerity here.)
If you want to brand basic income in a way for conservatives, advocate for a Negative Income Tax (Friedman's idea) as an alternative to welfare bureaucracy.
Basic income isn't like Negative Income Tax at all. The core idea of BI is that no matter how much money you make you always get the BI, it's "basic".
NIT is just moving the progressive tax system into negative values, which means you subsidize the poor but once you make enough money you won't get subsidized.
> Basic income isn't like Negative Income Tax at all.
UBI is identical to NIT. The names are different framings of the concept, but the policy is identical and widely recognized as such, which is why the experiments frequently referred to tests of UBI are also the ones characterized as tests of NIT.
> NIT is just moving the progressive tax system into negative values
“Progressive” refers to marginal rates, which remain non-negative in NIT; NIT just has a flat personal refundable credit (which is equivalent to a flag annual payment) included. Which is exactly what a UBI is, except the payment in some forms of UBI is outside of the tax system, but that implementation detail is irrelevant: whether it's called a tax credit or a non-tax payment is still the same thing.
But I'd like to elaborate a bit here. UBI is not identical to NIT because the difference is marketing, not math. Most of the electorate's basis for evaluating a given policy is not to perform a mathematical comparison of two systems and checking whether they yield the same results. How something is done is as important in politics as what gets done.
Which is why, as I've pointed out, BI isn't like NIT at all. The difference is how the idea is going to get sold to the public, not what each taxpayer is going to end up contributing to the system as a function of their income.
> UBI is not identical to NIT because the difference is marketing, not math.
But it's not even there, as proponents of both have stated that they are equivalent, and alternate names for the same thing, and they are marketed with the same arguments, and are widely acknowledged by their proponents to be names of the same thing. That is, the marketing isn't different, it's the same, both in content and on that the marketing itself recognized the equivalence.
The proponents of both have, in the words of a paper on the subject[1] agreed that "the two achieve the same distributive outcome through an appropriate tax-benefit system, [but] are fundamentally different from economic and ethical points of view".
Consider trying to introduce a universal health care system. You might say why do we need a system that subsidizes Jeff Bezos's health care? He can damn well pay for it himself, he might even agree since it's going to cost him less in terms of his tax contributions.
That's the equivalent of trying to sell NIT. Right out of the gate you have to not say "this is for everyone" but "it's just for the poor, but don't worry because...". That's what I mean by the marketing being different.
Of course with UBI the benefit is literally fungible, it's money. So it's really not like universal health care, but in the minds of a lot of people it is. They find it easier to accept the state providing a service if it's provided to them as well, even though it's a net cost center for them.
There are UBI plans that are definitely not equivalent to NIT plans. Some UBI plans require UBI to be taxable income for them to work. In that way they become more like guaranteed short-term (year long) loans for upper middle class/rich tax brackets. There's no similar proposal from the NIT side.
> Some UBI plans require UBI to be taxable income for them to work
That's still equivalent to an NIT (specifically, it's equivalent to adding the kind of refundable credit that creates an NIT, and reducing the standard deduction by the size of the credit, which may result in a negative standard deduction.)
Take the NIT situation, with a set of people i=1,..,N paying some amount X_i (maybe negative) of taxes. Now give all of them the same basic income BI, while changing the taxes paid [received if negative] by each of them to Y_i=X_i+BI. Do yo see the equivalence?
Yes, of course the rich are going to end up paying for BI no matter what. At some point the government is just taking $1000 out of your wallet and handing it back as BI, depending on your income.
But this is explicitly what the proponents of BI want. It's as much about the optics as who pays for it. I.e. the idea is to create a program that draws its political support from everyone getting paid a check, similar to how Roosevelt enacted social security to include all citizens, even those who were millionaires and had no need for it.
Which is what sets it apart from Negative Income Tax.
So it’s not like it at all, but it’s the same and it’s just that it looks different. Ok then. I can see why talking about receiving money is more popular than talking about taxes.
I'm not an advocate for BI but I think I've given you an accurate summary of what BI proponents would say about a NIT. E.g. listen to this Econtalk episode[1] where the host / guest have a debate on this exact topic.
Your argument that BI would be revenue neutral for some taxpayers and therefore we should just use NIT to avoid the sillyness of the government taking $1 from you just to give $1 right back to you isn't wrong, but it's missing what BI proponents are trying to achieve.
It's mainly about achieving roughly the same ends with different optics, and the comparison to Social Security is often brought up. Enacting any system like this is going to be politically difficult, and BI proponents believe that "everyone gets the same" is an easier sell than "this is another subsidy for the poor".
It's a bit more than just optics: there even is an economic advantage to guaranteed short term loans. If you know the government hands you a check April 16 every year, even if that money goes back into your taxes the next April 15, you still have a year to make that money work for you, however you see fit. It forces that money to circulate, and that can be useful to economic activity.
The difference between this and standard UBI proposals is that standard UBI gives everybody a certain fixed amount of money, whereas this gives everybody a certain percentage of GDP.
On the nose. Reads like he picked up a copy of Lakoff's "Don't think of an elephant!"and is attempting to apply framing theory. Great job sans the lack of details–though that in itself is probably intentional.
It's useful to try out different metaphors and see what sticks.
Universal basic income. He wants to (numbers _entirely fabricated here_) tax 20% of US GDP and then give that money evenly to all adults, therefore giving every adult American an equal share of 20% of the GDP (which would be about $14,000 per year per adult).
Of course you can tax GDP, every country in the world already does it. Surprisingly few people seem to be aware that GDP is the same thing as GDI, the sum of all income earned in a country in a year, the vast majority of which is already taxed.
About 60% of all US income (GDI) is compensation for labor (salaries, wages, benefits), 40% compensation for capital (dividends, interest, rents). Both parts are already taxed, at varying rates. The total amount of taxation is about 33% of GDI, while total spending is about 36% (the deficits is filled by borrowing).
Since the entire article looks like a big tax and transfer proposal, it's pretty bizarre to omit almost all basic government accounting, except for a throwaway footnote. The analogy with joint-stock companies or Homestead acts are neither here nor there. The government owned a lot of American land back then. It doesn't not own a large share of of current American corporations, nor many laborers. So the way to pay any significant "citizen's dividend" is boring old taxes.
It's an abstraction. You can tax people/things at a rate that causes a number of dollars equal to 20% of the GDP to end up in the state coffers (which brings up its whole own class of issues - what, exactly, do you tax to get that money? Income? Wealth? Stocks? Vanity license plates?).
Yeah and what adverse impact is it going to have on economic growth when incentives are taken away from long term investments and towards short term consumption that would be stimulated by welfare payments to the general population? What adverse impact would it have on the economy 1, 5, 10 years out? The U.S. economic engine is a wonderfully effective thing and among the best modern marvels. Taking 20% of that arbitrarily and twisting it into something else could have deep consequences.
He proposes a soft version of Socialism [1]. You can own a company but you will have to pay additional 20% income tax or 20% VAT (I am not sure how to gather in taxes 20% of GDP).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism "There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them, though social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms"
One possible implementation would be to build an index tracking fund that tracks a significant portion of the US economy, and pays dividends to all citizens.
It seems like it would be difficult to lock an entitlement program to GDP without encountering funding gaps at some point, though I suppose a funding gap hasn't stopped the Social Security program from continuing to pay out.
Alaska does this [1]. The only problem with the idea is that some things aren't considered GDP while they grow the pie - open source and volunteering being good examples.
This is why research grants and outright government spending is a good tool in the toolbox. People are still paying for it through taxes, but because of the indirect nature we can judge the problem a bit more on its merits ("of course we want cancer research to happen and be funded")
I think it would be an annual bonus for some Americans, and an annual tax increase for others. As someone who, I suspect, would be in the second group, I feel like we do enough of this kind of thing already.
And as someone who, I suspect, would be in the second group as well, I feel like we do the tax increase part way too much, but we don't do the annual bonus part nearly enough.
That's because any policy which gives free money unilaterally to 320 million people is going to be incredibly expensive. 14,000 * 320 million = 4,480,000,000,000...$4.5 trillion. Just...no. This is more than the Federal government takes in every year currently ($3.27 trillion).
While I agree with what you said, the counter-argument is that we do already pay taxes for the services that we use. You could argue that those taxes are too low because they don't capture the "gestalt" of civilization. But if you pursue that argument, then all humans, not just US citizens, should have equity since all humans contribute to the gestalt of civilization.
Which is odd because he specifically ask you to give feedback but never follows through on presenting the actual idea.
He does motivate why he thinks a share of the GDP is so he gets the why, but never actually gets into the what, and how.
I mean the GDP isn't just something you can siphon off money from and give it to someone as it's not a thing that anyone owns.
So if you want to give out a portion of the GDP, I think what he really means is pay a universal income that is locked to GDP growth, but he never really says this.