- 22 Jun 2017 18:18
#14817506
To provide a start to the debate two excellent videos exploring the future of automation. Both from channels I highly recommend.
[youtube]7Pq-S557XQU[/youtube]
[youtube]WSKi8HfcxEk[/youtube]
They make some compelling arguments that future automation may not necessarily ultimately result in more and better jobs in the future.
So I'd like to take a moment to make a case for one of my personal favorite policy proposals as a solution to the economic disruption outlined here.
The negative income tax is a proposal to create a form of universal basic income so that people making below a certain line get a calculated return in cash on a monthly basis.
This proposal has had proponents on both the left and right among social democrats to libertarians.
It would replace all other welfare programs into one simpler structure. It also provides people with more freedom to make their own choices while eliminating poverty without the need for constant means testing.
The structure of a negative income tax also means that there is no line where if you are making more money you lose all your benefits, so it doesn't discourage working.
It also provides people with the money they need to live even in times of high employment so that we do not see large economic collapses when people cannot consume and businesses collapse in a chain reaction leading to a depression.
Using the US poverty line, ~12,000 a year, as our baseline we can see that at an effective tax rate of 31% that we could entirely replace all forms of welfare with this program would be deficit neutral. The current effective tax rate is about 29.5% so this is not an appreciable increase and could also by covered by a variety of tax's like a carbon tax or an additional tax bracket on people making over a few million a year.
Poverty is gone, people have the opportunity to choose the work they do since they would have something to fall back on. This gives actual legitimacy to the libertarian argument that people can choose where to work and don't have to work long hours for little pay. It allows people the freedom to create their own businesses or develop their skills to pursue a new career.
It also hedges our economy against the future risks of automation and over the course of the next few hundred years provides a mechanism to adapt to an economy that is almost entirely automated from top to bottom.
For areas with higher costs of living, I.E. cities, they could implement their own extra benefit if need be.
It would be a start to a real dedication to equality of opportunity.
This system has been supported by everyone from Milton Friedman to the green party and I think should be strongly considered as an overhaul to our welfare and tax systems in all developed economies.
[youtube]7Pq-S557XQU[/youtube]
[youtube]WSKi8HfcxEk[/youtube]
They make some compelling arguments that future automation may not necessarily ultimately result in more and better jobs in the future.
So I'd like to take a moment to make a case for one of my personal favorite policy proposals as a solution to the economic disruption outlined here.
The negative income tax is a proposal to create a form of universal basic income so that people making below a certain line get a calculated return in cash on a monthly basis.
This proposal has had proponents on both the left and right among social democrats to libertarians.
It would replace all other welfare programs into one simpler structure. It also provides people with more freedom to make their own choices while eliminating poverty without the need for constant means testing.
The structure of a negative income tax also means that there is no line where if you are making more money you lose all your benefits, so it doesn't discourage working.
It also provides people with the money they need to live even in times of high employment so that we do not see large economic collapses when people cannot consume and businesses collapse in a chain reaction leading to a depression.
Using the US poverty line, ~12,000 a year, as our baseline we can see that at an effective tax rate of 31% that we could entirely replace all forms of welfare with this program would be deficit neutral. The current effective tax rate is about 29.5% so this is not an appreciable increase and could also by covered by a variety of tax's like a carbon tax or an additional tax bracket on people making over a few million a year.
Poverty is gone, people have the opportunity to choose the work they do since they would have something to fall back on. This gives actual legitimacy to the libertarian argument that people can choose where to work and don't have to work long hours for little pay. It allows people the freedom to create their own businesses or develop their skills to pursue a new career.
It also hedges our economy against the future risks of automation and over the course of the next few hundred years provides a mechanism to adapt to an economy that is almost entirely automated from top to bottom.
For areas with higher costs of living, I.E. cities, they could implement their own extra benefit if need be.
It would be a start to a real dedication to equality of opportunity.
This system has been supported by everyone from Milton Friedman to the green party and I think should be strongly considered as an overhaul to our welfare and tax systems in all developed economies.
My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders.