Here is my cranky response to something I found on a BI related discussion board. It was late at night when I banged this off. The writer is in England but it is the same idea. As I will increasingly expound on discussion boards, there is good BI and bad BI. It is not an excuse to demolish government according to some whacked out ideology promoted by corporate interests.
It also explains the why and how of an early post capitalist economy very well.
The original article...
The objective of the basic income is to enable all people to pursue a career that gives them a sense of self fulfillment, that is useful for society, and for which they are qualified.
The basic income achieves this by providing all adults with ?1000 per month, regardless of whether they work or not. This money would come from the state, and would replace nearly all existing state benefits.
Secondly, the tax system would be reformed in such a way that VAT would entirely replace income tax. This would be a far more efficient system, and tax evasion would no longer be possible.These two reforms would lead to a huge cut in bureaucracy, and coupled with the increase in productivity that would
follow as a consequence, the basic income would be affordable for the state. The basic income would be far more generous than the current state benefits, but surveys show that the majority of people would still work, as the basic income would be insufficient to pay for luxuries. In essence, the basic income represents a fundamental shift in the way we think about work and pay. We would no longer be dependent on jobs for money, and consequently we would have more freedom, and there would be a dramatic transfer of power from employer to employee.
The implications of the basic income are tremendous workers would be empowered, housewives would be paid and would no longer have to say 'I'm only a housewife', the cultural scene would flourish as dependency on the miserly Arts Council funding would disappear, students would have access to all the books and resources they need and worries about tuition fees would be thing of the past, and the pensions crisis would no longer loom ominously over Britain's future.
...and my response
No, I do not have a question. I simply state that here is another example of the "bait and switch" tactic that is being used to advocate for cretinous libertarian aims.
You could not fund society adequately with just a vat tax. It is also a regressive tax, one that taxes the poor more than the rich. Can't any of you retards grasp the concept of regressive versus progressive taxation? There, a question.
Here is the real way to fund, not just a Basic Income, but everything else that is needed to fund a government to organize and manage an advanced urban civilization. It is with a well thought out system of taxes which prevent the concentration of wealth which is totally incompatible with democracy.
A vat tax and most kinds of property taxes need to be gotten rid of. A wealth tax, meaning a tax on fixed assets, needs to be created. And we need changes to the laws of incorporation so that corporations can no longer be a threat to democracy, can be shut down and dissolved if they get out of line.
And of course corporations should pay all revenues into a government fund, from which operating costs are paid out. Government then pays investors on a pro rata basis and the rest is tax.
With all this wealth the sinister G word pays everybody's BI, pays for free education, free health care, reasonable housing, and keeps the transport and other public utilities in top shape.
The economic problem is never; how to deal with scarcity. It is always; how to dispose of surplus. tr