The wealthy and the poor should all be interested in a Universal Basic Income scheme
What is a Universal Basic Income? It refers to a payment, made for instance monthly, to all citizens, without any differentiations based on wealth and income.
The wealthy must know that' some voluntary redistribution must occur, in order to stop involuntary redistribution from happening, and so they know that some Pro-Equality Tax on wealth and income is lurking around the corners. In this respect they have a vested interest in that the redistribution is done as cost effective as possible, so that the redistribution needs are minimized.
The poor have also a vested interest in that the redistribution is done as cost effective as possible, so they get the most out of the redistribution.
And to top it up, the redistribution could help the real economy, and so that the wealthy could perhaps fast recover what was redistributed from them.
And to top it up, with the resulting increased demand, the poor can help the real economy to provide them with jobs and, hopefully, with opportunities for also them become wealthy.
That some who received the Basic Universal Income might, because of wealth and income, not merit it? So what, they only gave a gift to themselves, at a cost much less than what they ordinary pay for a tip.
Consider Universal Basic Income to be a Societal Dividend, like a dividend you get when inheriting some shares in a corporation.
Now who could be against all that? The usual redistribution profiteers of course... the redistribution mafia.
Besides a Pro-Equality Tax, there could be are many other good alternatives to how to fund a Universal Basic Income scheme.
It could for instance be funded by carbon taxes, which would help us to align the fight against inequality with the fight against climate change… and thereby also keep the climate change profiteers at bay.
And since we can almost be sure there will be lot of structural unemployment in the near future a Universal Basic Income begins to respond to the needs for worthy and decent unemployments.
And all that would provide us one great additional benefit. By keeping the social redistribution functions separate, we could have a better and more transparent oversight over how the government is performing its other functions... and that would help us to keep the government profiteers at bay, and increase our chances of getting good governments.
It’s a win, win, win! Of course, as long as it is paid out in real money... funny money would make all worse.
Question: If only 1 million produce all the food the world needs, should only they eat, or Universal Basic (Food) Income? Would the all the rest allow the food producers to dine in calm?
PS. In my country Venezuela the poor did not get more than tops 15%, of what would have been their per capita share of some incredible oil revenues. That is why I have had enough of redistribution profiteers to last me several lifetimes. That is why I have defended net oil revenue sharing among all citizens for soon two decades, which is nothing but a (variable) universal basic income funded with oil revenues.
My Universal Basic Income blog
Question: If only 1 million produce all the food the world needs, should only they eat, or Universal Basic (Food) Income? Would the all the rest allow the food producers to dine in calm?
PS. In my country Venezuela the poor did not get more than tops 15%, of what would have been their per capita share of some incredible oil revenues. That is why I have had enough of redistribution profiteers to last me several lifetimes. That is why I have defended net oil revenue sharing among all citizens for soon two decades, which is nothing but a (variable) universal basic income funded with oil revenues.
My Universal Basic Income blog
Posts
