Agreed on the framing, coupling and on carbon tax generally. Carbon taxes are a sort of economic theory gone rogue as it hits the political scene. I am extremely frustrated that the green side of politics is pushing this so hard. It's a dead end.
Disagree totally on UBI. A rational UBI plan would recover 25%-50% of the UBI somehow. Income tax, a VAT or other mechanism. In addition, a UBI takes pressure and saves costs of other social programs. Directly reduce poverty. Have less poverty. Spend less on other poverty reduction programs. There is also a strong "stimulus" effect. UBI generates economic activity. That get taxed. Government revenue increases.
Considering the benefits, I think it's a no-brainer for countries with a strong enough economy to support it.
A lot of the benefits are unknown, but I suspect some of the biggest wins will be in some of the most intractable problem areas. A big one currently is the town/city dichotomy. Successful cities are very successful. High salaries. Career opportunities. Low unemployment. Unfortunately, much of that is eaten up by inflation local to these cities.
UBI is geo-agnostic income. The effects on cheap, lower income areas could be very profound. Bear in mind that this problem is a graveyard of failed policies. A lot has been tried. Little has worked. This has much better odds.
> Disagree totally on UBI. A rational UBI plan would recover 25%-50% of the UBI somehow.
Fine. UBI of $1000/mo for 200 million people (2/3 of US population) costs over $2 trillion per year. Recover half of it and that’s still net $1 trillion per year. That’s more than 1/3 of the current federal budget. And there is no possible way that it replaces that much in existing spending.
I agree there's no likely way to make UBI revenue neutral.
That's not what I meant. It costs something. I think it's a cost that is worth it, and I think it's a cost that's feasible. Nothing is free.
If you want to get into the feasibility of a specific plan, take a look at Yang's proposal, or some other proposal that has been subjected to (and adapted by) technical criticism and analysis by multiple parties.
I'm not saying you'll reach the same conclusions as me, but even highly oppositional analysis don't come to vastly different estimates of net cost. $100bn ballpark differences, not a trillion.
Note that yang's proposal is for a 10% VAT. Most wealthy economies that have a vat, have a 15%-25% rate. The plan is pretty conservative on the taxation side. Also note that nearly all the analysis uses "orthodox macroeconomics," the mix of keynesianism and monetarism that seems to be falling apart as a consensus atm. A different take on money creation (almost any competing theory to monetarism) yields much better estimates on cost.
All that said, you have to consider UBI an economically transformative plan. If you don't think it is, then you probably won't conclude that it's worth it. Impossible is not a rational solution, IMO.
Of course you could fund it by introducing new taxes. But it’s still trillions in spending above what we’re doing now, and there’s a rather extreme lack of imagination if paying people to play video games is the most creative and productive use you can think of for over a trillion dollars per year in new government spending.
> Also note that nearly all the analysis uses "orthodox macroeconomics," the mix of keynesianism and monetarism that seems to be falling apart as a consensus atm.
Ah, the old “money printer go brr” theory. I wonder how much 1000 Zimbabwe dollars or 1000 Weimar marks or 1000 Venezuelan bolivars will actually buy you.
Some savings are automatic. If a social program targets low income thresholds, and UBI raises some people above that threshold then fewer people draw on it. It costs less.
Disagree totally on UBI. A rational UBI plan would recover 25%-50% of the UBI somehow. Income tax, a VAT or other mechanism. In addition, a UBI takes pressure and saves costs of other social programs. Directly reduce poverty. Have less poverty. Spend less on other poverty reduction programs. There is also a strong "stimulus" effect. UBI generates economic activity. That get taxed. Government revenue increases.
Considering the benefits, I think it's a no-brainer for countries with a strong enough economy to support it.
A lot of the benefits are unknown, but I suspect some of the biggest wins will be in some of the most intractable problem areas. A big one currently is the town/city dichotomy. Successful cities are very successful. High salaries. Career opportunities. Low unemployment. Unfortunately, much of that is eaten up by inflation local to these cities.
UBI is geo-agnostic income. The effects on cheap, lower income areas could be very profound. Bear in mind that this problem is a graveyard of failed policies. A lot has been tried. Little has worked. This has much better odds.