
The UBI already exists for the 1% - Parbeyjr
https://medium.com/@MattBruenig/the-ubi-already-exists-for-the-1-d3a49fad0580#.1wuim2od4
======
ideonexus
I think one of the most ingenious political ploys in American history was when
the wealthy convinced the working class that capital gains should be taxed at
a lower rate than income taxes.

I'll never forget having lunch with my co-workers, all of whom were paying
30-35% in income taxes, lecturing me that a 20% capital gains tax was unfair
because the investor, "already paid taxes" on that money when it was first
income, so taxing the gains amounted to double-taxation.

I've never understood the argument that raising the capital gains tax would
slow economic growth either. Why would people give up free money just because
they have to give a little more back to the government that makes the
marketplace possible?

~~~
cjlars
Inflation isn't deductible, which means that bonds can pay extremely high
(real) capital gains rates. If the bond pays 2.5% nominal per year, and
inflation is 2% per year, and you pay a 20% capital gains rate, then you make
0.5% in real returns and owe 0.5% in capital gains taxes. Which is a 100%
effective tax rate.

Stocks are more forgiving, at 2% inflation, plus 8% nominal returns (6% real),
and a 20% tax, you would pay 26.7% effective taxes. At 6% inflation, it would
be a 40% tax rate.

So this all made more sense when taxes were reformed under Reagan, which had a
high inflation environment as a backdrop. Realistically, it would probably
make more sense to have inflation deductible and progressive, but equal rates
for cap gains and labor income. (edit: for full equivalency, you might also
need a rebate for capital losses).

------
kfk
Capital is not abstract, capital is a production input (not sure the correct
English name for this), the same as iron, concrete, flour, etc. You don't find
any problems in paying for flour, do you? Then why is it a problem to pay for
capital?

Another thing. State "capital" has been done, it's called communism (or heavy
socialism), it doesn't work. Why not? Because the people making decisions on
State "capital" do not get any of the downsides. You burn 50% of State owned
capital? Who cares, it's not yours anyway.

And final one - managing capital is work! Knowing where to put your cash is
work and it has a huge impact. Think how much of an impact can have somebody
investing billions in space exploration (Musk?), or aging, or cancer. There
are plenty of big trends worth investing that will give humanity as whole
immense benefits (just look at the past 100 years).

Capitalism is not perfect, post-scarcity is a real threat, but the author is
making the wrong arguments. The real problem is what people will do once we
reach post-scarcity? What religions will they believe? What philosophies? How
will they spend their time? Can they bear a life with 0 problems (I am not so
sure I could)?

~~~
John23832
> And final one - managing capital is work! Knowing where to put your cash is
> work and it has a huge impact. Think how much of an impact can have somebody
> investing billions in space exploration (Musk?), or aging, or cancer. There
> are plenty of big trends worth investing that will give humanity as whole
> immense benefits (just look at the past 100 years).

Musky investing a billion dollars into a company the produces things isn't the
issue. Musk would be taking a risk to build something that can reasonably
fail. The issue is that (with our largely service based economy) many large
capital holders simply charge rent and rent seeker have negligible risk
compared to the owners of physical capital.

~~~
kfk
You can't charge rent if you don't invest into something. If you know how to
get rent with 0 investments and risks, please tell me, I'll pay you for some
consulting.

------
cjlars
Putting aside the author's soak the rich rhetoric, the recommendation, which
is basically to develop a sovereign wealth fund and pay UBI from that, has
seen success. Norway, the UAE and Saudi Arabia have been able to give back to
their citizens through shrewd financial planning and resisting the populist
urge of deficit spending.

In America, however, we've gone the other way, with gdp of ~$18 trillion, and
federal debt also at ~$18 trillion, we've got a $63 trillion hole to dig
ourselves out of before we can pay a net 10% of GDP out to support the poor
assuming 6% real returns on the fund. Unfortunately, it's very unlikely we
would ever see the political will for a such a huge austerity project.

Before you go saying we should just 'snag society’s capital income' as the
author recommends, do note that large scale nationalizations as we've seen
during Mao Zedong's Great Leap Forward in China and more recently Venezuela's
actions under Chavez and Maduro have produced truly devastating economic and
humanitarian results.

------
winestock
Two points.

First, income from rent (say, for real estate) isn't divorced from work. The
landlord has to make some arrangements for the upkeep of the property. The
renter, by virtue of being a renter, can't be responsible for everything. If
nothing else, the landlord must make and maintain a business relationship with
a property management firm.

Second, critics of universal basic income have not neglected to note the
destructive effects of the lack of useful labor among the upper classes. The
decadent aristocracy has been a trope in fiction, history, and priestly
sermons for ages.

Anti-Enlightenment scholars and traditionalist Catholics have pointed out that
the nobles in the Vendee worked the fields much like the peasants. The nobles
had more land and better land, but not extravagantly more. The Vendee and
Brittany launched the counter-revolt that nearly ended the French Revolution.
It was the provinces whose nobility were busy buggering mistresses in
Versailles and Paris that fell most easily to the Jacobins.

~~~
sammydavis
Rent is said to be divorced from work for the wealthy people who did nothing
and inherited their large dowry, buildings and land owned. The wealthy
inherited person receives income without doing any "work". Sure, it's
difficult getting up, taking showers and eating breakfast, figuring out what
charitable function to go to that weekend, but some people don't call such
folks with inherited wealth "working". Yes, having a place to rent and live in
NYC is certainly useful for society. But the people with inherited wealth who
own such buildings and receive income for doing nothing more than paying some
firm to take care of their building aren't really achieving much. You could
make a similar argument about say my investments in mutual funds in my 401k. I
will (hopefully) make money off those investments. If I became very wealthy
and say my grandchildren inherited them, I'd be happy my children had assets
to help take care of them, but my offspring would be part of the rentier
class.

Why is it a trope that some wealthy people don't do any work? It's no doubt
true. Look at some of Trump's kids. Of course some wealthy people do lots of
work.

Interesting to hear about 'the Vendee'. It's certainly true that the vast
majority of nobles were not like that.

------
beojan
This poses the question: instead of paying out a monthly UBI, why not give
every citizen the equivalent lump sum up front? They can then decide how to
invest that money themselves.

~~~
captainmuon
For what period? A year? A lifetime? If the period is too long, you'll just
get ridiculous inflation, and also the money has to come from somewhere (if
the state doesn't want to borrow it all up front). I think the idea of UBI is
to be sustainable, steady-state, so monthly seems a good interval.

~~~
cmdrfred
Depending on how you wish to behave on a moral level a yearly payment might
limit the expenditure of the program. For example a friend of mine applied for
and eventually was accepted into the SSDI program. He was disabled due to the
fact that he was addicted to xanax and heroin. You have to wait a decent
period of time (6 months?) before the benefits kick in, at the end of that
period you receive a lump sum for the period of time that you waited. Well my
friend took his new found riches, ran to his dealer, and promptly overdosed.

I'd argue the cost savings are a net negative in that case but something to
consider.

