Since you don’t eat gold-bars, just redistributing of wealth solves very little, or even nothing.

The Guardian writes: “An alarming projection produced by the House of Commons library suggests that if trends seen since the 2008 financial crash were to continue, then the top 1% will hold 64% of the world’s wealth by 2030… equating to $305tn” “Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030”, April 7, 2018.

How awfully unjust… but… how do you productively convert that wealth into the products or assets that could be useful for the 99%, without unexpected consequences or without most wealth just going to a 1%, or less, of some new filthy-rich wealthy?

How much value of that $305tn of wealth would just evaporate by the redistribution? And what would that do to the value of the then projected $152 wealth in the hands of 99%?

For instance what would happen to the price of a Leonardo da Vinci’s “Salvator Mundi”, in which, someone very wealthy, agreed to freeze $450 million of his main-street purchase capacity? How do you turn that wealth into something the poorer of the 99% need?

Where would the stock market value head?

Where would the interest rate, for instance on public debt go?

Where would the prices of houses head?

And if wealth gets too much distributed, who is going to demand that which only the really wealthy 1% can afford to demand, and which creates a lot of jobs that would otherwise not exist?

It is amazing how much discussions there are about the need to redistribute wealth without any consideration to what that redistribution would entail. Could that be because that is not in the interest of any redistribution or polarization profiteers?

As I see it there is much more to be gained by capturing more income before it has been converted into wealth assets. Just redistributing existing wealth is a one-shot unsustainable top-down approach.

Much better is a very modest starting Universal Basic Income where you little by little begin to build up a societal dividend that will keep the redistribution and polarization profiteers at bay. And that is of course why the latter hate UBI… as it eats into the value of their franchise.

And of course, in order to fund that UBI you must find sustainable sources of income…like on the advertising revenues of Facebook and alike… like a special tax on revenues generated under the protection of an intellectual property right… like a special tax on revenues generated by those benefiting from close to monopoly high market shares… like a tax on whatever causes pollution and otherwise threatens our pied-a-terre… and so on

Ideas on how to start discussions and implementation of a Universal Basic Income, or Societal Dividend

We must all be aware that the Redistribution Profiteers will be out on force trying to confuse the discussions on Universal Basic Income. 

Therefore I believe some very few principles needs to be established and firmly held on to.

First that we are always talking about a “basic” universal income that in no way should reduce the incentive of people to try earn some additional income. In essence it could initially be argued as a complement to the gig economy.

The UBI should start to be tested in low amounts that are slowly moved upward in line with the experiences.

It should be clear from the very start that all UBI needs to be funded with real money… no funny inflationary money. Initially it should be funded exclusively with taxes already collected; although special taxes like on pollution could also be useful to align UBI with other important objectives.

From the very beginning we need to identify who could provide the payment services in the cheapest way possible. 

And then of course it needs to be clear that UBI is NOT a government handout. It is a societal dividend decreed by all the shareholders, all the citizens.

http://perkurowski.blogspot.fr/2016/04/the-wealthy-and-poor-should-all-be.html

PS. Since corporate taxes only dilute citizen's representation, all such revenues should help to fund a Universal Basic Income.

“I honestly don't understand why people vote against Universal Basic Income UBI”. Well here are some reasons.

The most general reason, thanks to arguments spread around by interested redistribution profiteers, is that by means of a UBI many will receive more than they should… in terms of what they need… and without reflecting enough on what is being redistributed, a societal dividend, really signifies.

The second reason is that many might consider that for some, given their special needs, a UBI does not suffice to keep them out of unfair unacceptable hardships… and without reflecting that not only nothing with UBI states a “that’s all folks!”… and again without reflecting enough on what is being redistributed, a societal dividend, really signifies.

Three, most those who carry out research on the consequences of UBI are, one way or another, often the recipients of re-distributional favors, and therefore have a bias against UBI.

For, bad proposals, look at the Swiss referendum. “2500 Swiss Francs or $3500 — would be paid to every citizen, for their whole life, no matter where they live. Those with a job could still work but would have the monthly income deducted from their salary.” 

Sincerely in such as referendum, I would also vote NO!  At about 50 percent of the GDP per capita, it is way too much. In Switzerland a number like $1.000, and expressed as a percentage of GDP or a percentage of average salaries, would be a much more reasonable level at which to start this social experiment.

And of course the idea of those working not getting the UBI plays directly into the hands of those arguing that UBI could cause people to work less.

So what is a Societal Dividend? Here is my take on it.

It is an amount transferred to anyone independent of having been able to capitalize on society’s strengths, like having been able to get a job.

It could be seen as an effort to grease the real economy by combating the natural concentrations of wealth.

It could be seen as a substitute for all those redistribution efforts that because of their complexity is bound to attract the profiteers.

It is a well-funded transfer, no funny money, from citizens to citizens, not depending on government favors. It could therefore be seen as an effort by citizens to become more independent of that populism and demagoguery that often lies behind all societal redistribution.

The way it is funded, could help to align the incentives for other societal causes, for instance if with carbon taxes, with the efforts for a better environment.

Here are some proposals to help our children and grandchildren have a better future than what is painted for them now.

First of all, we need to get rid of the credit risk weighted capital requirements for banks. 

These allow banks to hold less capital against what is ex ante perceived, decreed or concocted to be safe than against what is perceived as risky; which allows banks to leverage much more with “the safe” than with “the risky”; which allows banks to earn higher risk adjusted returns with “the safe” than with “the risky”; which means the banks will lend too much to “the safe” and too little to “the risky”; which means the banks are not any longer financing sufficiently the riskier future, they are only refinancing the for the short time being, safer past.

If we are to distort the allocation of bank credit to the real economy, let us at least do that with a good social purpose. In this respect we might benefit from introducing pro-SDGs and pro job-creation capital requirements for banks.

And since I believe that any redistribution of income and wealth managed by governments, becomes just too expensive because of all the redistribution profiteers involved, we should launch, as soon as possible, a Universal Basic Income scheme... a Societal Dividend. 

That would be great: for the wealthy, as they would need to distribute less or at least get more bang for each buck handed over; for the poor, since they will get more much more net result of any redistribution; and for fiscal transparency, since it will help separate the redistribution functions from the ordinary tasks of government.

And finally, if we also fund such Universal Basic Income scheme with carbon taxes, then we will beautifully align the incentives in the fight against inequality with those of climate change.

What are we waiting for?

Helicopter money? Why should we trust the pilots?

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.

The direct cost of redistributing by means of a Universal Basic Income should be 2 percent… tops! What current distribution performed by any government can compete with that?

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