If the government would give each person say 30 % of GDP per capita to each person (not a very high standard of living), then that would force them to raise 30 % of GDP in taxes to cover for that.
I think that would be too high anyway. Since anyone who bothers to work can make more than that, and the reduction in labor supply would increase pay, and any money you save will last you longer, there’s little reason to make it enough for people to be well off, as opposed to getting just enough to scrape by.
It’s also worth noting that most people will get a significant portion of that money back. If you make below the mean income (which most people do, since it’s positively skewed) you will end up getting all of it back.
It seems unfair to charge people the entire price to get slightly better goods. Thus, if you want to get slightly better goods, the government should still reimburse you for the price of the cheap goods. At this point, it’s just unconditional basic income with the government selling cheap goods.
As a minor point, Soylent as it is now can’t be considered no-frills food. If you buy it ready-made, it costs around $10 a day.
It seems unfair to charge people the entire price to get slightly better goods. Thus, if you want to get slightly better goods, the government should still reimburse you for the price of the cheap goods. At this point, it’s just unconditional basic income with the government selling cheap goods.
What you do then is in effect (if I understand you correctly) to give them a “food voucher” (and similarly a “housing voucher”, etc) worth a certain amount which they would be able to spend as they saw fit (but only on food/housing, what-not). Such as a system doesn’t seem very clever (as you imply): in that case, it would be better to just give people money in the form of an unconditional basic income.
I’m not sure why it would be so unfair not to reimburse people who want more expensive goods, though. Of course, the government does to a certain extent discriminate in favour of those with more frugal preferences in this set-up. But one of my points is precisely that we want people to develop more frugal tastes—to spend less on, e.g. housing and food. There is a “conspicious consumption” arms race going on concerning these and many other goods which this system is intended to mitigate to some point.
Different people have different needs. Some people would be happy in cheap housing and others wouldn’t—maybe they’re more sensitive to sounds, environmental conditions or whatever else is the difference is between cheap housing and more expensive housing.
The point is, there’s no basic standard that would satisfy everyone (unless that’s a reasonably high standard, which isn’t what is proposed here). Some people would consider more expensive goods and services NEEDS rather than luxuries, and for good reason—consuming cheaper alternatives might not kill them, but it would make them depressed, less healthy and less productive (for example)
So it is unfair to subsidize certain goods and services and not others—one might wonder “why is my neighbor getting her needs met for cheap, while I have to pay full price to meet my needs?”
I’m not sure why it would be so unfair not to reimburse people who want more expensive goods, though.
If it costs $1.00 to make the basic food, and $1.10 to make slightly better food, and someone is willing to pay the difference, shouldn’t they get the slightly better food?
Maybe it’s not a big deal that nobody will eat anything that costs between $1.00 and $2.00. That’s not a lot of deadweight cost. It’s only around a dollar a person. But this will apply to everything you’re paying for, which we have established is significant. If it costs $300 a month for cheap housing, and you virtually eliminate any housing that costs less than $600 a month, that is a lot of deadweight cost.
In 2002, total U.S. social welfare expenditure constitutes over 35% of GDP
I think that would be too high anyway. Since anyone who bothers to work can make more than that, and the reduction in labor supply would increase pay, and any money you save will last you longer, there’s little reason to make it enough for people to be well off, as opposed to getting just enough to scrape by.
It’s also worth noting that most people will get a significant portion of that money back. If you make below the mean income (which most people do, since it’s positively skewed) you will end up getting all of it back.
It seems unfair to charge people the entire price to get slightly better goods. Thus, if you want to get slightly better goods, the government should still reimburse you for the price of the cheap goods. At this point, it’s just unconditional basic income with the government selling cheap goods.
As a minor point, Soylent as it is now can’t be considered no-frills food. If you buy it ready-made, it costs around $10 a day.
What you do then is in effect (if I understand you correctly) to give them a “food voucher” (and similarly a “housing voucher”, etc) worth a certain amount which they would be able to spend as they saw fit (but only on food/housing, what-not). Such as a system doesn’t seem very clever (as you imply): in that case, it would be better to just give people money in the form of an unconditional basic income.
I’m not sure why it would be so unfair not to reimburse people who want more expensive goods, though. Of course, the government does to a certain extent discriminate in favour of those with more frugal preferences in this set-up. But one of my points is precisely that we want people to develop more frugal tastes—to spend less on, e.g. housing and food. There is a “conspicious consumption” arms race going on concerning these and many other goods which this system is intended to mitigate to some point.
Different people have different needs. Some people would be happy in cheap housing and others wouldn’t—maybe they’re more sensitive to sounds, environmental conditions or whatever else is the difference is between cheap housing and more expensive housing.
The point is, there’s no basic standard that would satisfy everyone (unless that’s a reasonably high standard, which isn’t what is proposed here). Some people would consider more expensive goods and services NEEDS rather than luxuries, and for good reason—consuming cheaper alternatives might not kill them, but it would make them depressed, less healthy and less productive (for example)
So it is unfair to subsidize certain goods and services and not others—one might wonder “why is my neighbor getting her needs met for cheap, while I have to pay full price to meet my needs?”
If it costs $1.00 to make the basic food, and $1.10 to make slightly better food, and someone is willing to pay the difference, shouldn’t they get the slightly better food?
Maybe it’s not a big deal that nobody will eat anything that costs between $1.00 and $2.00. That’s not a lot of deadweight cost. It’s only around a dollar a person. But this will apply to everything you’re paying for, which we have established is significant. If it costs $300 a month for cheap housing, and you virtually eliminate any housing that costs less than $600 a month, that is a lot of deadweight cost.