So....we got to the final chapter of Van parijs book. I don't think I'll do a full on reaction to it since I've written literally 5-6 posts on the subject by now, but the final one is on the topic of a global income and how to make UBI work in a globalized world. And I know my opinions on this subject are going to be unpopular with the post 2016 left (as a matter of fact, this is a core reason I hate both parties these days and believe neither truly represent my values), but my stance is that in order for a utopia with basic income and the right to say no to work, we need to cut the idea of UBI at a nation's borders.
As I have expressed previously, I am an economic nationalist. I believe that the core unit of governance in this world is currently the nationstate, and that in the context of UBI, any UBI will need to be distributed via such entities. We need a state that can tax and raise revenue, and we need to be able to spend money. This goes back to the fact that my idea of the state more or less goes back to things like social contract theory and the fact that the state is supposed to exist for the benefit of the people it serves. And I do believe that states have more of a responsibility toward their own citizens than outsiders. This is not to say it would exploit, abuse, or harm outsiders any more than absolutely necessary to achieve its goals (after all, foreign policy is a mess and I do begrudgingly affect that we are forced to make certain ethical decisions on such a scale that tend to be somewhat questionable at times....), but this does not mean that governments are responsible for the well being of those outside of their borders, or those in their borders who do not belong here (such as illegals).
If we have a universal basic income, distributed by the local nation state, in this case, the United States, then it should primarily go to American citizens and legal permanent residents who plan on staying here and becoming citizens one day. It should not go to outsiders. Such an idea just is not sustainable. This is a huge reason I oppose "globalism" and "neoliberalism". My ideas are not compatible with it, as a UBI would lead not just to lots of immigration in, but also a lot of capital flight out. It makes sense that a UBI advocate wanting to pass a UBI in their home country is able to deal with the influx of immigrants in, and the flow of capital out.
In terms of the flow of capital out, I'm just going to say it, there should be a 100% exit tax on assets above a certain amount if people renounce their citizenship. It was the country that allowed you to acquire the wealth in the first place, and that wealth is forfeited and belongs to the people if you try to leave with it. Some see this as authoritarian, but I see it as necessary to stop capital flight. Besides, I support keeping the laffer curve at or below roughly 70% to minimize capital flight anyway. Sure, France had an issue with capital flight a few years ago, but they supported a 75% income tax on top of other taxes leading to an effective tax rate near 100%. That is obviously bad, but as long as the total combined tax rate between local/state/federal is under 70% or so, I do not anticipate significant problems.
As for people coming in, illegals should not get UBI and society should continue to stigmatize illegal immigration to some degree. Maybe not as much as the hyper nationalist Trumpdy Dumpdies, do but more than the permissive mindset of the far left. Illegals should not get any UBI or government aid at all, legal immigrants I am open to getting UBI given they meet certain conditions. Van Parijs did mention that it is unfair to tax immigrants for labor done while denying them some form of aid, but we could revert to a more "social insurancy" style negative income tax style UBI for them, with UBI associated with work effort on the behalf of these immigrants. This will not give them true freedom like a citizen would have, but it is a fair compromise I think.
As for an actual global UBI, I'm not in favor of such a proposal. Not only because I do not believe that the nation's obligations go beyond that specific nation state and its members, but because I do not believe it is feasible. The living standards question is already debatable within the US, given varying standards of living between locations as it is. I've already seen a lot of "middle class" people from areas like NYC or urban California reject my proposal on the basis that they would not benefit from the idea and that I would tax them too much and that $80k a person (my rough income cutoff where you end up paying more than you get back in UBI) is not that much. This is, of course, a problem limited to only the biggest cities with the highest cost of livings, and the core problem there being that too many people want to live in those areas and that the cost is so high because of the simple supply and demand problem those areas have. Now imagine this issue but made many times worse by how unequal global wealth really is. No first world nation would benefit from such a UBI. if you took $4 trillion from the US (about what my national UBI plan costs) and redistributed it globally to 8 billion people, each person would get $500 a year. While this would be enough to stave off the most extreme global poverty, distributed among that many people, it wouldn't even be enough to match the $2.15 a day standard set by the world bank. That would amount to about $785 for a year. Of course the rest of the world would hopefully be pitching in too, but yeah, it would be a massive net drain for global north countries. I always keep comparing these ideas to the idea of letting the oxygen out of the airplane to help people outside of the plane breathe better. Not only does it not help, it just kills everyone inside the airplanes. I believe that poverty within the US can be easily solved by a UBI, but global poverty is a much more complex question, and I really just don't have many answers for it other than providing a blueprint for other nations to adapt to their own political structures as they please.
Really, that's my solution, "have your own government make your own UBI". I believe the idea could work in just about any nation with a decent amount of stability and a functioning capitalist economy. it might only be a few hundred dollars in the poorest nations, but as trials in many of those countries have shown, it can work there. It does improve lives. I just do not support a mass transfer of wealth from the first world to the third. Each nation should be responsible for their own UBI. And I could see the US and other countries using things like the prospect of trade agreements and other pressure to pressure those countries into adopting a UBI within their own countries. That, in my opinion, is how to flip neoliberalism and the race to the bottom on its head, by actively encouraging other countries to adopt a UBI and have comparable tax rates and expenditure as a percentage of GDP to our own. It would solve the third world exploitation problem by multinational companies and give the world freedom for all that way.
Van parijs mentioned implementing it on the EU level. I could see that working but I could see it also triggering resentment. Again, living standards are quite unequal in the EU with northern and western European countries generally being richer than southern and eastern ones. As a matter of fact, the EU has regularly shown a preference toward the richer countries, implementing policies that help for example, Germany, while leaving countries like Spain, italy and greece out to dry. The EU is mostly dedicated to neoliberalism within its borders and given the chance has forced austerity on countries not able to afford their welfare states due to national debt and the like. This has caused a lot of resentment and is one of the reasons I feel like the EU is an organization a lot of Europeans have soured on in recent years. The other problem with the EU is immigration. From what I understand, talking to people with more of an alt right persuasion, is that if any one nation state in the EU lets immigrants in, they can then go anywhere else in the EU and collect social benefits there. This is a huge reason why the alt right is spreading in Europe. it's a direct response to the flaws of the EU and its structure and governing philosophy. Muslim immigrants from the middle east or northern Africa come in through poorer countries in eastern Europe and then go on to other countries like Sweden or France or until recently the UK, where a lot of nationalist resentment thrives. This has led to countries like the UK pulling out altogether, and there being scary moments where literal fascists start becoming more mainstream in countries like France (see how close Marine Le Pen came to winning there). Ultimately, if the left wants to counter growing alt right influence in Europe, they need to address issues with immigration and neoliberalism. All of this crap, both in America with Donald Trump, and in the EU with various alt right parties, is due to a rejection of neoliberalism. Austerity, open borders, unfettered immigration, a loss of jobs and other prospects. I believe in the US a UBI oriented ethos can be a solution, and in Europe, for UBI to be viable within the EU, they need to address the downsides of neoliberalism, both in terms of austerity, and also in terms of immigration.
As you guys can see, my own solution is to move hard to the center, maybe even adopting mild right wing sentiments on the subject. I believe it is necessary for UBI to work. I fully concede that more mainstream lefties may have an easier time being for open borders and blah blah blah given they support conditional welfare and social insurance system based on contributions. For them, the center of what makes someone valuable in a society is their labor. But for me, I view UBI as a right of citizenship, which makes me a lot more skeptical toward immigration. It should be noted I am NOT alt right, and do NOT endorse those sentiments. I would consider myself a moderate who supports controlled immigration and in terms of trade, "fair trade" (as opposed to free trade a la neoliberalism or full on protectionism a la the right). But I do have anti immigration sentiments in large part due to my specific philosophy otherwise. if I have to choose between a society with free and open immigration and a society with less work, I will choose less work every time. I will support keeping the airplane closed so the passengers inside can breathe, knowing that opening up at 30,000 feet will kill us all.
And yeah, that's my take on this chapter. I largely do not agree with Van parijs here, and I do take a much more economic nationalist take on the subject of immigration, and "freedom of movement" in order to make my own conception of UBI work. perhaps if we do actively encourage other countries to adopt a UBI and every country has a UBI of comparable quality in terms of per capita GDP, we can start discussing opening up immigration a bit more. But for the first countries to try the idea, yeah, I think we're going to need to approach immigration more cautiously.
No comments:
Post a Comment