←back to thread

300 points pseudolus | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
BrenBarn ◴[] No.44410806[source]
> I heard one answer more than any other: the government should introduce universal basic income. This would indeed afford artists the security to create art, but it’s also extremely fanciful.

Until we start viewing "fanciful" ideas as realistic, our problems will persist. This article is another in the long series of observations of seemingly distinct problems which are actually facets of a larger problem, namely that overall economic inequality is way too high. It's not just that musicians, or actors, or grocery store baggers, or taxi drivers, or whatever, can't make a living, it's that the set of things you can do to make a living is narrowing more and more. Broad-based solutions like basic income, wealth taxes, breaking up large market players, etc., will do far more for us than attempting piecemeal tweaks to this or that industry.

replies(31): >>44410825 #>>44410866 #>>44410867 #>>44410916 #>>44411075 #>>44411231 #>>44411300 #>>44411331 #>>44411377 #>>44411383 #>>44411390 #>>44411522 #>>44411551 #>>44411588 #>>44411793 #>>44411818 #>>44412810 #>>44413214 #>>44413504 #>>44413995 #>>44414020 #>>44414102 #>>44414213 #>>44414713 #>>44414846 #>>44415180 #>>44415597 #>>44415836 #>>44416489 #>>44416737 #>>44422633 #
GLdRH ◴[] No.44410825[source]
Except that socialism has failed already.

Universal basic income is impossible to justify morally.

replies(11): >>44410832 #>>44410842 #>>44410855 #>>44410860 #>>44410861 #>>44410889 #>>44410910 #>>44410924 #>>44411336 #>>44411438 #>>44416441 #
eru ◴[] No.44410924[source]
> Universal basic income is impossible to justify morally.

It's pretty easy to justify morally. I mean at least as easy as any other welfare.

The net payments for UBI plus (income) taxes don't have to look to different from what many countries already do today. It's just the accounting that looks a bit different.

replies(2): >>44410995 #>>44411036 #
hn_throw2025 ◴[] No.44411036[source]
UBI means giving money to people, which means that money has velocity because it would be promptly spent.

We did this during Covid as furlough payments, and the result was high inflation. Wages didn’t significantly increase to match, so in my country anyway people feel that the cost if living is significantly worse post-Covid.

Anywhere that implemented UBI would also have to implement rent controls, otherwise Landlords would just see it as money on the table. But you couldn’t have controls for all prices, so inflation would still result.

replies(3): >>44411057 #>>44411093 #>>44416802 #
eru ◴[] No.44411093[source]
> We did this during Covid as furlough payments, and the result was high inflation.

No. The high inflation was a result of Fed policy, not fiscal tricks like furlough payments.

> Anywhere that implemented UBI would also have to implement rent controls, otherwise Landlords would just see it as money on the table. But you couldn’t have controls for all prices, so inflation would still result.

You are right that UBI can lead to higher relative prices for rent.

And that's why you would want to pair UBI with land value taxes, not rent control.

(UBI would not lead to inflation, and would not necessarily lead to higher absolute rents. The overall level of inflation is something an inflation targeting central bank, like the Fed or ECB, controls.)

replies(2): >>44411119 #>>44414515 #
1. hn_throw2025 ◴[] No.44411119[source]
> And that's why you would want to pair UBI with land value taxes, not rent control.

In the last place I rented (London), the private landlords were unlikely to own the land. Fixed term leasehold was overwhelming common, not freehold.

replies(1): >>44411695 #
2. eru ◴[] No.44411695[source]
That doesn't make a difference to how land value tax works. If a landlord doesn't own the land, he leases it from someone who does.

But to make LVT simpler to understand (and economically equivalent): you can imagine the government owns all the land, and rents out plots for eg 20 years at a time to the highest bidder. To help people plan better, the auctions can be done 5 years ahead of time. So leases for 2036 - 2056 will be auctioned off in 2031.

You can stagger the auctions, so a few leases get auctioned off every week.

replies(1): >>44411961 #
3. hn_throw2025 ◴[] No.44411961[source]
If we step away from the realms of imagination, then in the UK typical leaseholds are legally valid for about 100 years, with some going up to 999 years. Of course, many leaseholders - the rent seeking Landlords - may come and go within those lease cycles.

Or are you proposing State confiscation and management of the land? I can’t quite tell from your post.

replies(1): >>44412300 #
4. eru ◴[] No.44412300{3}[source]
I was describing a simpler system for implementing UBI. You are right that I left out how to transition to that system.

For example, you could do more or less the same thing that the UK did to abolish slavery: buy out all the existing land owners / lease holders.

I suggested 20 years as a reasonable time frame for leases. In principle, 100 years might would also work. 999 years is probably far too long.

Now, instead of auctioning off the leases, you can also have individuals officially owning the land, but instead you tax them a certain fraction of the market value of the land every year. Economically that's equivalent.

A 999 year lease is basically economically the same as owning the land. So you should more or less treat it the same.