So, there's a common thread that leads into my distaste for certain policies and ideologies I've discussed recently. And one thing that unites these things is that the philosophy underlying these things is one that has what I consider a screwed up theory of justice.
When crafting a policy, you want a policy that is actually fair to everyone, and ideally, helps people in line with their means. I'm not necessarily talking about means testing mind you. If anything, means testing is the problem. I'm talking about how sometimes policies don't help those who should be helped, and hurt those who shouldn't be hurt.
Think about the student debt thing, and my own situation. As I see it, Biden's plan helps some people, but leaves others high and dry. Biden primarily helped people who I'm not saying didn't need help, but didn't need help THE MOST. He removed 10-20k of student debt for people, while leaving those who have much more debt, like me, high and dry. The logic? Well if you have an advanced degree, you should be able to pay for your loans. Excuse me, but what if I LITERALLY CAN'T FIND A JOB THAT ALIGNS WITH THE INCOME LEVEL I "SHOULD" HAVE?! Seriously. A huge reason I have the attitude toward work and jobs I do is because the system failed me. I never had decent opportunities out of school. I needed experience to get a job and a job to get experience. "Opportunities" paid too little, for too much work, and were very far away, often 50+ miles away. The only actual jobs available to me were the minimum wage jobs I literally took on all of this student debt to avoid in the first place.
But, neoliberals are insufferable on the subject. "Oh what do you mean you can't get a job in your field, what's wrong with you?!" A lot of things, really, but that's besides the point. The point is, they have this weird just world fallacy that having an education means you can get a job with enough income to pay back the debt. And that's just untrue. Even if I did work a job at say McDonalds making $9 an hour for 25 hours a week, which is standard these days, I'd make like $11000 a year. My IBR payments would be $0. If I worked full time and made say, $18,000 a year, I'd be making payments of like $40 a month? Over 25 years I'd pay off $12000 of my debt, it wouldnt even cover a fraction of the interest.
The reason the student loan crisis is a student loan crisis is because people who go to college aren't getting the jobs they're "supposed" to. College is supposed to be a pathway to a better life, but the market is saturated with college grads, and many of us end up underemployed and full of debt. The reason I prioritized this issue, beyond my own personal stake in it, is because I KNOW this is a crisis that impacts millions of people. I've talked to people and shared my misery with people in similat situations. And I know that this is a widespread SYSTEMIC issue. While college is CORRELATED with higher income, correlations aren't perfect. To put things in statistic terms, since my student debt did pay for education on things like stats and research methods, correlations can be strong, or they can be weak. We generally measure strength on a scale between 0, meaning there's NO correlation AT ALL and two variables are unrelated, and 1, meaning a PERFECT correlation between the two. Many correlations looked at in social sciences vary, and often aren't 0 or 1. You might have a correlation of 0.45 or something which is perhaps a bit weaker, or something like 0.83 which is quite strong.
But the weaker the correlation it is, the more exceptions to the rule exist. And while ON AVERAGE, YES, college is BY AND FAR an investment that increases earnings potential, there are a lot of people who simply don't benefit from their degree. In a lot of ways, income potential and college is arguably linked to its exclusivity. It used to be that only the rich could afford college, which controlled the number of college graduates available in the job market, and given the relative number of job listings per graduate, it ensured that tons of people could get jobs with their degrees, leading to higher earning potential.
But what did adding student loans do? it increased the pool of these graduates, but the job openings weren't always there for them, so this led to decreased income potential and a lot more variability in how well people benefit from college. In short, it helps some people, but not others. It's kind of based on luck. And of course, location.
Location really shouldn't be understated. Heck, this is another reason I like Yang. Because Yang talked about this in his war on normal people, and how the recipe for success is very cookie cutter, you go to certain schools, major in certain things, and move to certain cities to get jobs. More prestegious schools are better than community schools. Majors in business or something like that are something than majors in womens' studies, for example (to pick on a major people like to pick on). And of course, living in a big city means more success than living in a smaller town.
Heck, Andrew Yang looked at this formula and concluded that large swaths of Americans are so screwed on their economic prospects, that the only way we can hope to provide for everyone is through programs like UBI. And that's...also what guides my thinking, and why I'm such a Yang fan boy despite his obvious flaws. Because his analysis of the issues and his solution is dead on here.
But, I also still believe education should be an inherent right of all Americans, and support equality of opportunity, and I believe debt should be forgiven.
But...going back to the neoliberals in the democratic party, they seem to miss the plot. In a lot of ways, the neolibs are stuck in their professional class bubbles that they are just like "what do you mean you can't find a job? I go down the street and there's tons of jobs", as they tweet from their offices in NYC and silicon valley. Yeah, if you live in certain locales, and have a certain skillset with a certain educational background, you can end up on easy street. But if you live...where I live, well, let's just say, you're screwed. Because the nearest cities with any job potentials are 50+ miles away, they're still precarious and don't pay well, and yeah.
Of course, you could say I should have made better life choices, but at that point, I'm just gonna tell you that you should join the republican party with that attitude. Because that's what their standard line is toward people.
Of course, its not ONLY neolibs going on about student loans who miss the plot like this. Let's take out another familiar punching bag, to harp on, that of the georgists.
Georgism is an ideology based around the teachings of Henry George pushing for the land value tax, with many of his followers advocating for all other taxes being repealed and replaced with one massive land tax. This land tax, according to them, would solve the problems of the housing market by encouraging economic efficiency because the land value tax is unavoidable, unlike taxes on income from labor or consumption, and it would increase housing as landlords would be forced to build densely in order to house the most people.
But...these guys often forget how the world is. And how a majority of Americans are homeowners. While their LVT would replace taxes like the income tax, payroll tax, and consumption tax, it really makes a lot of assumptions with how it taxes people. Essentially, it makes an assumption that your income will be able to pay the taxes. And well, if you can't....sucks to be you I guess.
This is actually one of the reasons I so viscerally hate these guys. I support taxes on income. As I see it, if you tax based on income, you tax on ability to pay. If you get more income, you pay more. if you get less income, you pay less. That's fair. And in line with my indepentarian mindset of liberating people from coercion, the way to minimize your tax burden is to simply opt out of society and live off of your UBI. Participation is voluntary, but if you participate, you'll pay taxes. ANd most would find the tradeoff worth it.
But a land tax is coercive. It basically taxes you based on your home ownership, or more accurately the land ownership under your house. And it basically thinks, rather than buying land and owning it, all land should be rented from the government in effect. So, rather than have a system of private landlords, you have a system where the government is the ultimate landlord. And it doesn't matter what your income level is, your tax is the same whether you make $0 a year or millions.
But this leads to...you guessed it, coercion, and injustice. If you happen to live in a house with land that is valauble, you're screwed. ANd as I've shown mathematically before, even if you live in an average or below average home value wise, with a UBI, that UBI would be undermined. It wouldn't work as an anti poverty program. it would just be a tax refund where you might, maybe, come ahead a few thousand, but not enough to live in. Basically, a LVT funded UBI isn't really a UBI at all as far as my conception of what a UBI is. It's based on an entirely different system of justice that I find unjust, and one that coerces you to get a certain income or be thrown out of your home.
And you know what, when I mention this to georgists...they don't care. THeir literal attitude is "well your tax burden won't be that high" (without even knowing what it is, as you guys know, I calculate it and I beg to differ), followed by simply being okay with forcing people out of their homes to meet their crazy standards of justice.
While their system might work for those who are privileged enough to have an income to afford the taxes, many don't fit in that box, and many will suffer under their ideas. Not just people like me, but also people like seniors on social security, the disabled, etc. They don't consider this. And quite frankly, they don't seem to care. Which is why I show such visceral distaste for these groups.
Honestly? Any philosophical system based on social justice should have a little bit of Rawls' veil of ignorance guiding its thinking. THe idea that society should try to benefit even the least advantaged person. Karl Widerquist's indepentarian theory is based on the same idea. And this is why I can afford to also be so lax on postmodernism and their idea of privilege in my eyes. As I see it, my policies benefit everyone, but they benefit the least advantaged most. UBI benefits everyone. Medicare for all benefits everyone. Free college and student debt forgiveness benefits everyone. Even the least advantaged person (citizen) in society would get these basics in my ideal world, and the cost of the programs will be borne in line with your ability to pay. If you are poor, you'll pay little in taxes, if any, toward these things. If you're rich, you'll pay a lot. And this is why I like income taxes or alternatively, a payroll tax deducted automatically (saves on paperwork and hassle). ANd given my ideas on top of the existing tax system, I estimate that people at the bottom will be paying 30-40% marginal tax rates, while the rich would pay around 70%. That's fair. The poor would be paying less than Friedman (or Howie Hawkins) NIT plan, keeping 60-70 cents of every dollar earned, but that would drop to 30 among the richest.
That seems fair. And with that, you have a system where everyone is taken care of, with a UBI above the poverty level, and healthcare and education for all. That's the philosophy behind my ideas.
Honestly, this seems much better than weird band aid fixes, means tests that exclude certain people who arguably need help, and weird ideas like land taxes completely divorced from income.
Honestly, I feel like too many people keep pushing vague correlations that might be true on the macro level, but ignore the micro situations many people who defy the norm end up dealing with. Something might sound great on paper, but then you kind of gotta own up to whatever flaws and faults your plans cause that harm others.
Perhaps my own ideas might be offputting to some too, but I generally would say that most people would get their money's worth from my system. Even if you pay 35% on the low end, around 45-55% in the middle, and 70% at the high end, keep in mind, you're getting a UBI that refunds you of much of that tax burden to the point that most people not in the top 25% of income earners would be net beneficiaries of my ideas. And while the top 25% would be net payers, well, doesn't it make sense that the most highly privileged people end up footing the bill for the rest of us? Seems fair to me. And honestly, this scale of tax burden isn't much different than a European country with generous safety nets. So it works.
Honestly, I think this is a lot better than having systems based on vague correlations and then just telling the outliers they're screwed.
No comments:
Post a Comment