Universal Basic Income

At least one Talk Show host in the US is going on about Universal Basic Income as a solution to- well basically everything- but primarily to poverty.
That is being piggybacked on the drive for $15./hr minimum wage. Now, the various legislation now wending it's way through the process is also talking about $15/hr as a basis for service employees in industries like food and bar service where there was "minimum" levels plus tips. Now it would be $15/hr and no impact on tips. That piece is probably good.
But given the abysmal track record (lets just call it a function of several brands of political manipulation) of things like the "War on Poverty" and "Welfare" and so many other programs I have serious concerns on anything they are talking about. Who gets it? How do you (so far you can't) link this BENIFIT to an avoidance of "various addictive substances".
Ok, this is an open can of gasoline and people are playing with matches.
I understand that the System that was going on with Haven is fiction but, darn, sound a lot like so many programs that are pushed as the solution but always seem to be: ever increasing, mired in corruption, political pork and having exactly the opposit effect on the welfare of the people it is intened to help by insuring they remain "in poverty" to keep the free benefits.

To those of us who have read "Into the Light".
This is the system adopted in the post invasion Terran Empire.
So in His Celeryness' opinion it can be made to work.

A point should be made that the People's Republic of Haven was supposed to fail.
(It was a set up by Mesa)

One question about UBI that never seems to get a satisfactory answer.
In the age of casual international travel and the ability to move entire fortunes across borders in order to extract them from onerous tax regimes, where will the money for UBI come from?

Look at the UK back in the 70's. The highest tax rate was well in excess of 75% (apparently exceeding 90% in some cases) and the end result was that tax revenues plummeted as the rich deserted the UK (which also pancaked the economy).

UBI needs a strong tax base to function and if the richest 10% (who pay well over half the tax) decide to scarper to avoid the rising demands, where will the required financial support come from?

I'm not saying UBI is a bad thing, but it's the sort of thing that almost requires a Post-Scarcity Economy in order to not eventually implode.

UBI is a tricky concept, since its success is wholly dependent on the societal fabric it is implemented in.

The thing is, raising minimum wage to a living wage alleviates much of the need for UBI. Implementing a functional social security net also lessens the need for UBI.

Michael Everett wrote:One question about UBI that never seems to get a satisfactory answer.
In the age of casual international travel and the ability to move entire fortunes across borders in order to extract them from onerous tax regimes, where will the money for UBI come from?

Look at the UK back in the 70's. The highest tax rate was well in excess of 75% (apparently exceeding 90% in some cases) and the end result was that tax revenues plummeted as the rich deserted the UK (which also pancaked the economy).

Hmm, and what has cutting taxes resulted in?

Small hint: It hasn't stopped wealth going abroad.

"If you raise taxes, the rich will just leave" is a statement that you should really go and try to prove correct. You won't be able to, not to the degree you'd wish to in order to make a sweeping point like the one you're making here: Yes, there will be some flight, but not as much as you'd think.

It's an undeniable fact of history that the US, for example, made the most progress in social and economic terms when the top tax rates were almost unfathomably high.

That is the one fact you need to disprove or explain away before you go all "<scheme> can never work because we can't raise taxes".

further reading:
https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/ ... es-threats

A flight of wealth from greatly increasing taxations does happen though usual to only hear about very high profile individuals and to some extent businesses that make the papers. More often it is met with better accountants and lawyers. Coming to some balance is the tricky part.

With what is presented (yes, in fiction) is Haven putting together a scheme to both keep down or at least initially co-opt a large portion of the population into a political base and keep the ---elite/aristrocrat/pick a name -- segment on top and firmly tied into making even more money. Other than being orchestrated by The Alignment (which now has quite a track record of destroying functioning star nations for it's own ends) the oligarchs found that that the lack of education and similar problems that led to a overall lowering of productivity and the income stream that both fattened their pockets and kept paying the UBS rises was going to fail.
At that point they started shifted to taking over neighboring star systems and, instead of managing the potential new revenue streams, they started stripping those systems of wealth and capasity to feed the monster they had created at home.

Manticore (again, fiction) had apparently a much better educational system but it also had the Junction as a Star Nation revenue source. It was/is not controlled by private interests but by the Monarchy and Government. So it seems that the tax load on the citizens was relatively low (not counting the funding the war with Haven created) and we get the picture that the Star Kingdom as a whole had a much greater focus on export and interstellar trade. Again, the Junction but they did already have a functioning merchant marine and they were exporting things. The Junction (and preferential rates don't hurt) put them at a trade nexus. Gobs of money. And the taxes were not confiscating a major portion of it. Sure, there were also fees (and that Navy to provide protection) but there wasn't the incentive to run to a tax shelter. Nor was there the need to run to freedom as the government of Haven became the biggest problem and/or danger to people who were trying to improve themselves.

Pick a number ( several US politicians already publicly have) at which the amount of money EARNED gets hit with a significant tax hike. Then there is the numbers being floated in speeches and statements on a Wealth Tax.......if you own X around of assets then you are going to pay Y amount of wealth tax on that. Not income, things you already own. At this point it's "only the wealthy", but that's another of those fungible words where what is meant is subject to the thought and intent of the current speaker. The rich can be someone who has 50 million dollars....or the guy down the street who has a nicer car than yours. And right after you have demonized that (pick a word) rich person, someone is liable to come along and brand then an enemy of the people and they must be suitably punished. That seems to end up with confiscating whatever the current power structure deems appropriate -to be put to good purposes (as seen by said power structure and parroting the current chant for ....whatever...right up to the point where it is politics to just kill off those offending rich sobs and take it all. And put it to Public.......whatever the term.....of course.
Read any good histories lately. Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire? French Revolution. Russian Revolution. China's Great Leap Forward? Lots of history. I admit to a great deal of cynicism when it comes to a great many politicians ...how does it usualy go.....are going to do the right thing, for the children, and the greater good?

Two separate topics here, that are somewhat interrelated.
The UBI has been tried in Scandinavian countries to a minor degree. Many European countries have a universal Aged Pension that has a non means tested component. I remember reading about a British PM who started to receive a small Aged Pension while still in power. An advantage is that it costs a lot less to administer a non means tested benefit.
In Australia we do have a problem with big multi international companies effectively paying zero tax. Apple, Google, and IKEA come to mind.
Countries like Singapore do negotiated tax deals down to 2%. Not sure of which companies, but one trick was for ACME Australia to create a Singaporean subsidiary, then lease the right to use the ACME name back from them for billions. Another was to have executives pick up a ream of photo copy paper from their Singaporean subsidiary for $10M a pop when attending meetings. Our tax people have blocked those, but more exist.
Warren Buffett has pointed out that he legally pays less tax than his PA, having more access to write offs.

From memory Ikea is about 20 companies.

1 that sells things and about 19 that get paid for management services and inventory supply.

Guess which are in tax havens?

Daryl wrote:...The UBI has been tried in Scandinavian countries to a minor degree. Many European countries have a universal Aged Pension that has a non means tested component. ...

Canada has had Old Age Security payments in place for generations. If you are a long-term Canadian that is older than 65, you get a taxable monthly OAS payment of about $600Cdn. If your income is low, you will not pay any taxes on this.

If your income is less than about $18k Cdn, then you get a supplementary payment of an additional $900/mo. If you have other sources of income, then this is reduced/clawed back.

This assumes one person. If there is a spouse, it gets a bit more complicated.

This has been in place for a long time and has not seemed to crash our economy or chased all the rich folk offshore (although many of the rich are using off-shore tax shelters, to be sure)