So, that last proposal gave me access to a few others that I can discuss. I decided to look at Scott Santens' proposal briefly. Now, I'm going to be honest. I respect the everloving crap out of Scott, so I am biased here. I mean, back in like 2014 we actually bounced ideas off of each other as far as funding UBI before, and he actually did use my napkin numbers from my first UBI-FIT model in some of his articles before. Of course, since then, we've diverged. You've seen my proposals, now I'm going to look at what he came up with.
He supports a UBI of $13,266 for adults, and $4,598 for children. This is progressive as fudge for 2017. I mean I still operated with the $12k/4k proposal through 2019 when I looked at Yang's proposal, and didn't up my UBI to this amount until recently. Generally he aims for 110% of the FPL. If done today, this would mean $14,168/$4,994 today. Given he proposes roughly my 2021 amount four years ago, his proposal is more progressive than mine on paper.
He estimated at the time it would cost $3.4 trillion. Probably a population estimate discrepancy. Not a huge deal.
He would raise $125 million from eliminating redundant welfare programs. This is good and noncontroversial.
He would raise $1.02 trillion from eliminating a bunch of tax credits like EITC, child tax credit, and other tax credits and deductions. Good so far. I mean, we don't need these if UBI exists.
He would reduce social security by 1/3, raising $380 billion. This seems just a tad too steep as I originally only did this by like 28% or so in my recent proposals, in order to ensure equal or greater net benefits, but this isn't bad. Great minds think alike. I admit I did move on from this specific proposal as I felt it would be better just to tax social security benefits with the flat tax, but eh, I'm not gonna knock someone for using an idea nearly identical to my old proposal.
He would raise around $150 billion from a carbon tax. Good so far.
He would raise $80 billion from a robin hood tax. Interesting proposal, although I would be using this one specifically for free college as per Bernie's proposal. Still, Santens isn't constrained by my additional pet projects here so not bad. I will be fair I'm not sure this specific proposal would work as FTT tends to have a bad reputation at raising revenue in practice, but this isn't bad at all.
He would raise $213 billion from seigniorage reform. This proposal I have doubts about. Essentially it seems to replace quantitative easing for banks with funding a UBI. I see where Scott is going with this, but I have to wonder if putting that money directly in peoples' hands would have a potential inflationary effect. I have to wonder about this one.
He goes with a 10% VAT, raising $750 billion. Going to be honest, VAT isn't an AWFUL proposal, but it would potentially erode the UBI itself, and I'm not really huge on this. Of course, this is also why he proposed a UBI 10% above the poverty line, as he said. So basically he thought ahead. I have to respect that amount of detail being put into his proposal here. He proposes a tax knowing its drawbacks, and then compensates. Brilliant. I don't see that attention to detail often in UBI plans..
Last but not least, he supports a 5% LVT raising $750 billion. This proposal I really don't like. LVT is iffy for me. I view it as a tax on existence. And while UBI compensates that, it does erode its purchasing power, potentially undermining its ability to serve not just as a social program, but as a revolutionary idea that frees people from the chains of wage labor. Given your median home is around $300,000, with 30% being based in land, that's $90,000 being taxed at 5%, which is $4500 a year. Now, if you have a family living in such a place, not a huge deal. But if you live alone, yikes, it does erode the UBI. Again, LVT basically turns government into a landlord. And you're basically paying $375 a month for the privilege of living in your own home here. I really don't like the idea much when applied broadly, and at such a high rate. Tax the landlords and rich if you must, but leave normal homeowners alone. Tax income instead or something. There's tons of ways for Santens to raise revenue other than this. Wealth taxes, corporate taxes, flat or graduated income taxes, etc.
Santens also throws out a few other ideas, like citizens' dividends from natural resources, or fees on intellectual property, or companies paying people for using our data. Not necessarily opposed to these things. Some of these things sound very Yang-esque. I when you really think of it, people like Santens are precursors to people like Yang. These ideas preceded Yang, and I'm seeing Yang's platform all over some ideas discussed in Santens' article. And I'm gonna be honest, I've shared a lot of these ideas before too, and discussed them with Santens on the basic income sub. So yeah, I think that's kind of cool actually, how I talk to one guy, and he influences a dude who later runs for president. Just throwing that out there.
Anyway, to give a final grade to Santens' proposal. I'm gonna have to downgrade to B+ simply because of how strongly I dislike the LVT component to it. It does not fit my vision of UBI very well at all, and I really am not a fan of georgism. I see where he's coming from on this, but I look at how this would potentially affect homeowners, and I'm just like, yikes, no, this isn't a good idea. Most people are homeowners in the US. More than not. I just think there are more just ways to tax people. You wanna go after landlords and other land hoarders, fine, but I don't like the idea of hitting homeowners. Even if the net benefit for most is positive, I just take a strong principled stand against that idea.
Other than THAT though, his proposal is near perfect. I may be adopting some of the stuff that he proposed here that I did not into future proposals. Maybe not seigniorage reform or the VAT, I heavily prefer my income/payroll tax approach, but the tax credit stuff? Yeah that's a gold mine of acquiring revenue right there. And I can't think of any downsides there.
Like really, other than the LVT, I'd basically be giving this a full on A, or even an A+. It really is a well thought out proposal that seems to try to cover a lot of stuff. Even made me consider a few things for my own future proposals. It's literally the best proposal I've come across....that isn't my own. Let me put it that way. But again, huge philosophical disagreement over LVT here.
No comments:
Post a Comment