Thought Infection, “Funding Universal Basic Income by Creating Money, Not Taxes.” Thought Infection. March 23, 2014.
Thought Infection
Thought Infection, “Funding Universal Basic Income by Creating Money, Not Taxes.” Thought Infection. March 23, 2014.
Thought Infection
I have been engage in the issue of basic income for a while, but find, with variations, many depend on government and taxation to fund the program. While such approaches are aligned with how government currently functions it opens a host of other issues, not to mention running straight into the headwind of anti-tax, small government ideologues. I just came upon one of your previous posts dated March 23, 2014 entitled, “Funding Universal Basic Income by Creating Money, Not Taxes.” and found the proposal sufficiently unique and interesting enough to contact you.
I had two comments regarding your blog post. The concern of expanding the money would lead to inflation would be in part addressed by automation itself, which through greater efficiency and productivity would significantly reduce production costs and thus act as a check to inflation. Then again with an the automated industrial base that I and think you imagine, many basic economic principles based on scarcity will in time be minimized or rendered irrelevant. In how I read your proposal the central criticism I have is that it seems to leave untouched the issue of social inequality. One could say if everyone perceives their own boat rising people would not be as concerned about the rich being so much richer and to a real extent that would be right. The problem is, in such a scenario where does political power lie?
What I suggest is a General Investment Fund. Tracing out its most general features, this program would involve government being a ‘stockholder’ who would then distribute non-transferable ‘share’ holdings representing the entire economy to each individual from which individuals would derive their income from the ‘dividends’.
The amount of funds tied to inflation received by individuals would be a reasonable amount in providing for basic needs, but not tied to the total increase in wealth. Companies are guaranteed to make an adequate profit to remain viable in the form of reinvestment to fund expansion, new capital equipment, and other expenses. In time, due to a combination of technological advances and consequential wealth generation, there might occur gradual increases in the dividends once the program has reached everyone and has stabilized. It should be stated that this program is un-linked to the efforts of individuals to develop other sources of income if they so choose.
This program will be rolled out over time by first addressing the current most needy, then those who will need funds as their employable hours drop or disappear. A mature program would be distributing the needed amount of shares to all individuals irrespective of their wealth. However, initially the program would likely prioritize those most needing attention and thus temporally exclude individuals who are personally self-supporting and or whose worth exceeds some predetermined level.
Yes, there is a ready long list of questions, issues, and objections as you mentioned regarding your own proposal. It is for this reason I am writing you for any feedback you might have and or knowledge of references that have a bearing on my proposal in order that I can better evaluate and if it continues to holds merit flush it out further.
I very much appreciate your time and attention on this matter.