The Death of the Middle-Class Musician

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.

Universal basic income is impossible to justify morally.

Let's have a look at Scandinavia or Germany. They have reasonably generous welfare systems, but they are means tested. So for the sake of argument, declare them to be 'truly livable'. Especially by global standards.

Now I claim, that you can get pretty much the same net payments (of means tested welfare - taxes) that these countries have today with a system of (UBI - taxes). Basically, at the moment both taxes and welfare are means tested; you could move to UBI by moving all the means testing from welfare to taxes.

Because net payments would be pretty much the same, all incentives would stay pretty much the same as today.

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax which is one way to implement something like a UBI.

Of course, if you want to go much beyond what Germany and Scandinavia are already paying, you'd need even higher taxes or a stranger economy.

Btw, per capita the US is one of the world leaders of social welfare spending. They spend more than France. (Mostly because while France spends a higher proportion of GDP, American GDP per capita is much higher.)

Nope, in Germany you are required to work. If you can't find a job, you still have to try (and prove that), you need to stay at home / be available (and notify the state about your vacation or you might be punished by receiving less welfare) and of course you have to use up all money or wealth you have and state, in written, that you have no other sources of wealth.

So UBI would absolutely change incentives here.

Though in practice it's fairly easy to put in a token effort so your welfare won't be cut, but avoid actually getting hired.

But you are very right that the token effort is still effort.

> [...] and of course you have to use up all money or wealth you have and state, in written, that you have no other sources of wealth.

That is similar to taxing that money and wealth. But you are right.

With taxes, even crazy high, you can still accumulate wealth. Taxes slow you down, but it’s still possible.

With net-worth-ceiling to receive welfare, you’re forced you cannot accumulate wealth on welfare. And your previous wealth is gone before you get to earn welfare.

Got a nice house and BMW and decided to slow it down and live on welfare? Or, more likely, work under table and collect welfare too? Good luck with that :)

That's only true for income taxes, not for wealth taxes.

How are you going to pay those wealth taxes? (Assuming you have no income.)

Of course, same applies to welfare - you can only sell part of your stuff. But the caveat is you won't have access to welfare till you sell all of it AND spend the money you got.

Personally I like welfare-with-net-worth-threshold. Obviously it should not apply to unemployment insurance which is, well, insurance.