|
Top-level
 @dingodog19 I agree. My concern is what happens the first time we introduce UBI on a macro scale, big enough to potentially start a cycle of high-inflation/needing-to-boost-UBI/high-inflation/… I think the best way to prevent that will be to recognize that UBI at scale needs to be wealth redistribution — we'll have to increase taxation significantly on the most-affluent n percentile to dampen their non-essential spending and offset new (essential) spending by the least-affluent n percentile. 12 comments
@dingodog19 Just so. At least here in Canada, we didn't do that during COVID. The temporary income-support benefits like CERB were critical, but because we did nothing to offset that increase in the money supply at a time when supply chains were already wobbly (i.e. no additional supply to meet increased demand), we ended up with high inflation that we're only now bringing under control. We could take that as a macro-economic lesson in how not to do full UBI when the time comes. @hunkyscotsman wrote > So you want to try communism 2.0 No. I want to improve our current mixed public/private economic system by introducing UBI to replace a big part (not all) of our inefficient, high-overhead mishmash of targeted income-support programmes, and make our taxation a little more progressive to reduce the risk of inflationary pressure. This is all classic Keynes, not Marx Its more Marxist than Keynesian... If you could implement either UBI or universal healthcare, which one would you choose? @hunkyscotsman Strange question. How would paying more tax money for less-efficient healthcare help fund UBI? The U.S. is the only major rich country without universal healthcare, and their governments together spend the most per-capita on healthcare (with worse outcomes), and then force many citizens to pay twice, buying private health insurance to cover what they've already paid for in taxes. @hunkyscotsman On Marx vs Keynes, UBI would be irrelevant in a communist system, since everyone would already (in theory, if not in reality) have everything they need. But by the 1930s, it was clear that both pure communism and pure free-market capitalism were untenable (except as political slogans), which is why rich counties today use blended systems, about 50:50 public:private economic activity, ±10% either way. UBI is a way to make the public part more equitable and efficient. @hunkyscotsman Both. It doesn't make sense to pick one or the other, because they meet different needs. False dilemmas don't advance the discussion. @hunkyscotsman What reality? Every rich country except the U.S. already has universal healthcare — no one's proposing cancelling that. Every rich country including the U.S. already has a web of expensive, targeted income-support programmes and and other benefits. The goal of UBI is to replace many of the social programmes so that more money ends up in beneficiaries' hands rather than bureaucratic overhead. Creating a false dilemma is a beginner's trick to try to derail a discussion. |
Gregory's Server
@david_megginson
I think those things happen at the same time. Increased taxes (like a minimum percentage tax) could offset the UBI, making it neutral on the money supply.