- 30 Sep 2021 06:58
#15192792
I agree that the current housing price bubble is going to push up all rents. Something needs to be done about this.
. . . However, taxing parts of the economy that have monopoly power likely is not the answer. In this case, they can just raise the rents more to pay the new taxes. What is necessary is to break their monopoly power.
So, if you are right and all the UBI of $15K per adult citizen and say $7K per child is sucked up by the owners or rental properties, then maybe the UBI will not be inflationary. This is because the people who get it are immediately giving it to their landlords. The people don't get a chance to spend it, the landlords do, and they will likely save most of it.
However, not everyone is a renter. Those who are not renters will spend or save it. So, it may still be inflationary.
Your claim also applies to wage increases and all other income increases by the people who live in rented housing.
So, I'm going to assume that the changes in who has power over the Gov. that will allow my program to pass into law will also deal with the problems of monopoly power and of multi- billionaires having so much money that they have no use for. [Now, they can use some small part of it to buy Congress and the Gov., but I just assumed that they will no longer be allowed to do that. So, for example, I have proposed a 99% (or 999%) tax on all PAC campaign donations and independent political ads, etc.]
. . . I'm not sure how to break the monopoly power of landlords, but it will also have been done somehow.
. . . This means I'm assuming that that the landlords can't raise their rents to suck-up all of the UBI.
. . . If this assumption is true, then I again claim that a "living UBI" will cause certainly inflation. And that taxing the rich to 'pay for it' will not help, because it is the masses who are spending the money that the Gov. took from the rich, who would have otherwise put it in their savings and would not have spent it.**
PS (added with edit very soon). Sir, it appears you are making the mistake that all MS Econ. theories make of assuming that money is the same as things. So, they assume that a nation can quickly change from exporting fruit to exporting wine (when it has fruit trees and no grape vines at the moment). Here you are assuming the the rich will spend the same percentage of their income as a the very poor. So, taxing the rich has the same size effect (only the opposite direction) as giving the resulting money to the poor and everyone else.
.
. ** . Note that MS Econ. theories falsely assume that, or prove that, money being saved is used by banks to make loans that are then spent on investments or just spent. This is not true because banks don't lend the deposits, they create new money with every loan. IIRC, this includes 'loans' made by people using their credit cards.
Truth To Power wrote:The U technically means "universal," but IMO it can only apply to resident citizens. The community's obligation is to look after its own people and not, e.g., visitors from other countries. OTOH, citizens residing in other countries have placed themselves outside the community's protection, so if they need help to survive, it's clearly up to them to deal with the problem where they are or get back home.
But the problem with UBI is that no matter how much it is, landowners will just take it all.
The idea is that it is supposed to be enough to live on; but the cost of living depends a lot on whether you have to pay private landowners full market value just for permission to live. There is also the problem of people who have to live in supervised or institutionalized situations because they can't be responsible for themselves due to physical, intellectual or psychological disabilities. In such cases, the institution responsible for them would presumably get their UBI.
Depends what you mean by "welfare." Presumably all other income support programs would be abolished.
Unless it is paid for with taxes on economic rent, which, unlike our current taxes, encourage production of goods and services rather than punishing it.
I agree that the current housing price bubble is going to push up all rents. Something needs to be done about this.
. . . However, taxing parts of the economy that have monopoly power likely is not the answer. In this case, they can just raise the rents more to pay the new taxes. What is necessary is to break their monopoly power.
So, if you are right and all the UBI of $15K per adult citizen and say $7K per child is sucked up by the owners or rental properties, then maybe the UBI will not be inflationary. This is because the people who get it are immediately giving it to their landlords. The people don't get a chance to spend it, the landlords do, and they will likely save most of it.
However, not everyone is a renter. Those who are not renters will spend or save it. So, it may still be inflationary.
Your claim also applies to wage increases and all other income increases by the people who live in rented housing.
So, I'm going to assume that the changes in who has power over the Gov. that will allow my program to pass into law will also deal with the problems of monopoly power and of multi- billionaires having so much money that they have no use for. [Now, they can use some small part of it to buy Congress and the Gov., but I just assumed that they will no longer be allowed to do that. So, for example, I have proposed a 99% (or 999%) tax on all PAC campaign donations and independent political ads, etc.]
. . . I'm not sure how to break the monopoly power of landlords, but it will also have been done somehow.
. . . This means I'm assuming that that the landlords can't raise their rents to suck-up all of the UBI.
. . . If this assumption is true, then I again claim that a "living UBI" will cause certainly inflation. And that taxing the rich to 'pay for it' will not help, because it is the masses who are spending the money that the Gov. took from the rich, who would have otherwise put it in their savings and would not have spent it.**
PS (added with edit very soon). Sir, it appears you are making the mistake that all MS Econ. theories make of assuming that money is the same as things. So, they assume that a nation can quickly change from exporting fruit to exporting wine (when it has fruit trees and no grape vines at the moment). Here you are assuming the the rich will spend the same percentage of their income as a the very poor. So, taxing the rich has the same size effect (only the opposite direction) as giving the resulting money to the poor and everyone else.
.
. ** . Note that MS Econ. theories falsely assume that, or prove that, money being saved is used by banks to make loans that are then spent on investments or just spent. This is not true because banks don't lend the deposits, they create new money with every loan. IIRC, this includes 'loans' made by people using their credit cards.