There’s a great way to fight climate change and inequality, but since it leaves profiteers out, it will be opposed

I proposed a new $2 per gallon of gas tax. That, by helping to lower the consumption of gas, and thereby of carbon emissions, should be great in the fight against climate change.

And I also proposed that all revenues from that gas tax, should be paid out equally to all citizens, in a sort of first step of a Universal Basic Income scheme, which should be very good in a fight against inequality.

But, if so good, why are the chances that become a reality so slim? The simple answer is that it would not provide profit opportunities for the climate change and redistribution profiteers.

Friends, if we are serious about fighting climate change and inequality, we must be serious about keeping the profiteers at bay. 

Fighting against climate change and inequality takes a lot of money and, if we also have to satisfy profiteers while fighting, we simply might not have enough money.

PS. A concrete proposal for Mexico

http://teawithft.blogspot.com/2016/04/having-carbon-taxes-fund-universal.html

A SDRM must begin by defining “odious” credits and borrowings. Also, when should capital receive anonymous asylum?

The world no doubt needs a Sovereign Debt Restructuring Mechanism but, if that is going to help the citizens of the world, which it primarily should do, that must begin by making very clear the difference between bona-fide normal credits and borrowings, and odious credits and borrowings.

And at what moment should somebody's capital classify to receive anonymous asylum? For instance would someone escaping from North Korea be able to do so?

Must we respect central bank’s independency even if they go crazy and statist?

What is this with QEs injecting huge amounts of money buying government debt because that is supposedly safer? Who on earth can believe government bureaucrats know better what to do with other peoples’ money than citizens with their own? 

What is this with negative interest? Just months ago the elderly were to retire later, in order for their sacked by the government pension or social security funds to be able to pay them something… and now they are to retire as fast as possible to get at least something? 

What on earth is this with the risk weights that determine the capital requirements for banks? 100 percent for the citizens, and zero percent for the government? They’ve got to be kidding.

What on earth is this with the risk weights that determine the capital requirements for banks? Higher when financing the riskier future than when refinancing the safer past? Just wait till our kids find out! 

Are we sure we have not packed our central banks with Chauncey Gardiners?

PS. Since I now do not even trust the pilots, I don’t want Helicopter money any more, just a Universal Basic Income.

PS. 2006 Long-term benefits of a hard landing

Don’t let redistribution profiteers raise your expectations. In offshore centers there are no shining treasures, only documents.

With relation to Panama, the Mossack Fonseca affair and offshore centers in general how many articles do not begin with something like “The wealthy conceal their cash”?

That gives the impression of an Ali Baba cave where fabulous unused treasuries are stored and that if only these could be recovered from the 41 thieves everyone would live happily ever after.

What devious bullshit! What exists in those offshore caves is a load of documents that gives the holders of these the ownership of a lot of assets, almost all of these to be found onshore... for instance stocks, property in London or municipal infrastructure bonds.

Granted, the ownership of some of those assets is incorrect, since in not so few cases they should belong to the governments… but that is another issue that has little to do with the assets as such.

And many of those assets are the result of loopholes… but who can throw the first stone holding that using loopholes is an odious behavior.

If you hate loopholes, I do, fight for their removal, by for instance making tax laws simpler, better and fairer.

But in the same vein we have corporations who, egged on by smart tax-lawyers, intensely exploit the opportunities loopholes provide, let us not forget that on the opposite side, we most often find redistribution profiteers waiting to lay their hands on new business opportunities.

For instance if we want to redistribute wealth and income, the most efficient way would be through a Universal Basic Income scheme, at a cost of 2 percent tops, but that leaves many of the redistributes asking "what’s in it for me?"... and so they oppose it.

If for instance we imposed a big carbon tax and distributed its revenues equally to all as a part of Universal Basic Income then we would align beautifully the fight against inequality and climate change, but a lot of the mercenary soldiers in the wars against climate change and inequality, would also ask… what’s in it for us?

Profiteers surround all wars, no matter the cause. It is impossible to avoid them, but let us at least try to point out their theoretical existence.

And please when I refer to “profiteers” I do not only speak of those who collect their profits in cash. Much much worse are those demagogues and populists who collect their profits in political power… like the late Hugo Chavez did.

PS. An interesting question is what represents more money deposited in offshore centers: that from tax fraud and evasion or that from stealing tax revenues?

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

As a foreigner I get so confused reading America’s Declaration of Independence while listening to President candidates

The Declaration of Independence states as one of its basic motives that “The King of Great Britain… has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.”

And it also states as a motive for Independence: The King of England has also “combined with others to subject us to Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended legislation: … For cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World.

And it also states, as a motive for Independence: The King of England “has excited domestic Insurrections among us” 

PS. How did America move from Reagan’s “Tear down that wall” to Trump’s “Build up that wall”, in just a few decades?

PS. When you build a wall, how can you really be sure you end up on the right side, with the right company?

We need a Pro-Equality-Tax on income and wealth that keeps the redistribution profiteers away

I am convinced it behooves all of us who have much more than those who have much less to think about the need of a Pro-Equality tax on income and wealth.

That need is mainly the result of interferences and abuses of free markets, many of these promoted by governments, many of these hidden in well-intentioned regulations.

If a Pro-Equality-Pot were to be redistributed through current ordinary channels, not much would change, in fact inequality and other problems could get much worse.

As an absolute minimum we must keep all redistribution profiteers away.

The Pro-Equality-Pot should be distributed in equal parts to all nationals, line through a Universal Basic Income scheme, and that should not cost, tops, more than 2 percent to do.

To achieve that I believe it is indispensable to separate the Pro-Equality taxes from all other ordinary taxes paid to keep governments running.

That separation would bring much needed transparency, which also helps us to make it harder for dangerous demagogues to seed discord in our nations.

Initiatives like a Universal Basic Income sound promising. Let us stop the redistribution profiteers from killing these. 

The Universal Basic Income has nothing to do with the Right or the Left; it has all to do with the Radical Middle.

The Universal Basic Income is a citizen to citizen initiative... it must keep out the populists and the demagogues wanting to profit on the redistribution.

PS. I come from Venezuela a nation that in 2005-2015 received incredible amounts of net oil revenues. During that decade the poorest 40 percent of its people, from a government that identified itself as 21st Century Socialism, did not get even 15 percent of what should have been their per capita share of that income. I have fought a lot for the distribution to the citizens of the oil revenues. Unfortunately, until now, the redistribution profiteers have had the day.

There are good and bad, or at least better and worse, distortions.

Place a universal 100 percent tax on all petrol/gas sold in the world, and then share all resulting revenues equally among all citizens of the world, and then let all that income be ploughed back into the economy without any distortion.

That would allow us to help the environment, fight inequality and promote the growth of the economy. 

Not bad eh?

But place a higher capital requirement on banks when they finance someone safe than when the finance someone risky, as is done now, and that does nothing for the environment, increases inequality and distorts the allocation of credit to the real economy, with serious consequences.

Bad eh?