Money comes from value and value comes from somewhere. If you receive a redistribution, you've not created value but you've received it. That's "free money".
When my tax dollars get redistributed to pay for some poor person's medical expenses, I am actually paying an incredibly modest amount for the enormous benefit of living in a society that isn't plagued with sick and infectious people.
I place a high value on living in a city where there aren't hoards of sick people dying from malnutrition because a simple injury has made them unemployable. And it is nice to know that the person making my latte isn't likely to be a carrier of tuberculosis or cholera.
Hi, I'm affluent and highly taxed, and redistribution is awesome.
Basic income is quite different from medical expenses, though.
The main problem of malnutrition is nowadays not that people wouldn't get food; it's that they get too much of it (particularly of the instantly gratifying type that has high energy content).
My point is a broader one made by example, that a society of people with a safety net is more desirable than one where the have-nots can only live off trash and sympathy.
(Though personally, I think the biggest reason to give a guaranteed income is because the money poor people receive is almost entirely spent in local shops and on rent and utilities. And it's spent on stuff that people want, whether we think it's a good decision or not. That makes it an efficient way for government to disperse money into the economy.)
In the U.S., the top 0.001% already have UBI by virtue of the corrupting taint of lobbyists / super PACs influence greatly expanded corporate (capitalist) welfare using legitimized legal trickery (ie tax code, commercial&civil law), while the rest of the people subsidize trickle-down deception, massive tax-breaks, offshoring and so on (likely because they lack the political connections and grassroots organization+leadership to mount an effective opposition). The American Dream has withered for many whom feel diffusely angry for sliding into desperate, meaningless, retail, part-time jobs or idleness... drugs, alcohol, crime and Trumpistan are just the unfortunate symptoms of oversupply of labor and the need for many more businesses to find sustainable, good-paying jobs that add value so people can choose to have some purpose and self-confidence.
What has worked:
- Stronger (ie sans "right-to-work")/more-effective/less-corrupt unions
- Much higher, graduated corporate tax rates
- Simplified, progressive personal & corporate income taxes (ie Norway's personal tax system by SMS is often quite user-friendly)
Rent is also value that one didn't create. A way to fund basic income that particularly appeals to me is a land value tax, because resources that no one created (land, oil, etc.) don't rightfully belong to anyone and the benefits from those resources should be shared.
I grant you that oil is found in and around the earth we all share. However, value comes in when you extract it into a usable form for others. I think you have to consider this value add when discussing resources. If you do, it tracks my original comment.
There is definateky value provided in exchange for rent. Rent is paying to stay in someone elses building or what not, not just the land. you are essentially paying the landlord instead of building your own home.
If you think there is no value to living inside, well, that's just delusional.
A land value tax is a tax on the unimproved value of the land itself. If you improve it (build a house for example) you've created value, and that isn't included. The value added by the landowner is a small portion of the amount of rent you pay in San Francisco.
Sure, there is a component of rent that comes from the structure. But that isn't the component that causes the price difference between an apartment in San Francisco or Manhattan and the same size apartment in West Texas or Detroit.
And what limits that supply? Some combination of a limited supply of land and limited planning permission, neither of which are created by the landlord and both of which could very reasonably be taxed.
> There is definateky value provided in exchange for rent. Rent is paying to stay in someone elses building or what not, not just the land. you are essentially paying the landlord instead of building your own home.
True, renting isn't merely usage of the house; renting involves more than that. A landlord is required to maintain upkeep on the housing and ensure the property remains functioning. If you buy a house you need to pay for that yourself and the costs can be situationally high. (Disclaimer: I don't know if this is true in US, but its true in NL at least.)
There are plenty of free lunches, they're called externalities, free rider problems, etc., etc.
For a maxim held by so many who flirt with economics, it's strange that so much of the field is explicitly about determining where the free lunches are.
The point of TANSTAAFL isn't that you'll never eat for free. It's that someone pays for your lunch. In an externality, someone pays for your lunch involuntarily.
And I don't think that makes it any more relevant as a maxim here. Social safety nets, welfare, and UBI are all giving lunches to people. Sometimes they produce net benefits, sometimes not.
Throwing in TANSTAAFL doesn't add anything to the discussion.
UBI represents a massive increase in the level of redistribution proposed, so it's important to remember that it is redistribution and the money will have to come from somewhere.
The point is that every lunch is non-free to some people, even if it is free to others.
You might thing it trite or a truism, but very many people forget that the billions/trillions for UBI is going to be very expensive for a lot of people.
And remember friends, TANSTAAFL.