Labor Is a Market Distortion, we need VAT and UBI

Labor Is a Market Distortion, we need VAT and UBI(wilsoniumite.com)

8 points by Wilsoniumite 4 hours ago | 8 comments

bob001 1 hour ago |

Isn't VAT generally a regressive tax so does the exact opposite of what the author thinks it does? The rich spend less versus their income than other demographics. I guess the UBI is to offset that but that just doesn't seem like a stable system.

tumdum_ 1 hour ago | |

The author addresses this exact concern.

bob001 1 hour ago | | |

The same way a random redditor addresses concerns about their proof of Riemann Hypothesis.

CuriouslyC 2 hours ago |

We're not going to get economic change until the people revolt. This doesn't need to be a revolt with guns and bombs, it could just be a refusal to pay taxes and to purchase things. The US has shown that it's extremely vulnerable to economic warfare given how little slack there is in the system for absorbing shocks, so it's the perfect avenue for asymmetric warfare.

spwa4 48 seconds ago | |

Aren't people going to revolt still have to work? What's the point? If the revolution succeeds they'll have zero access to imported goods, because nothing to exchange (and that includes TV's, smartphones, computers, cars, internet, ... for essentially everywhere) AND have to work way more.

That's the reward the revolution can conquer. Hurray!

Wilsoniumite 1 hour ago | |

Perhaps, but this is actually a both a somewhat novel framing of the problem and of the solution. If academic economists agree with this theory and subsequently get behind it, it could be like climate change.

Except this change isn't anti growth and is a lot simpler to fix than climate change. It can be bi-partisan, if framed right, we have to at least try.

lelanthran 2 hours ago |

> Why VAT?

> This is a little harder but not too hard: Because it’s the mirror of UBI. The UBI will fund consumption, VAT taxes consumption.

This is dumb; there's literally no other way to put it!

VAT is a tax exemption on the rich; that's all it is.

mort96 1 hour ago | |

100%, VAT is a regressive tax. Poor people use a large portion of their wealth on products and services. Rich people use a much, much smaller portion of their wealth on those things.

Plus rich people all have companies pay for a lot of their stuff. Need a new laptop? Buy it through your company. Internet and cellular plan? Company. New cell phone? Company. Many even have their cars paid by an compaby. All those purchases through your company are VAT exempt. Poor people buy their own laptops and their own cell phones and have their own Internet subscription and cell plan and car. They pay the VAT.

I'm in Norway, where the standard VAT rate is at 25%. I don't understand how such a vast regressive tax is so uncontroversial here. Get rid of it and replace it with a larger wealth and capital gains tax.

jmclnx 1 hour ago |

What is needed are enforceable laws that force companies to pay a living wage. The wage paid is based upon the cost of living in various US metro regions. The wage must be updated every 6 months. And we need a single payer health system.

Plus a type of tax that forces the ultra-rich to pay, if needed, a wealth tax that some countries are enabling.

bob001 1 hour ago | |

That works only as long as people are employed and there are enough jobs to employ people. Simplest solution for a company is to outsource or automate jobs away as much as possible. After a couple years customers will adjust to the new norm even if it's a worse experience for them.

b3ing 3 hours ago |

Keep dreaming, we are in hyper capitalism mode, ebshitification, etc. They just spent weeks of government time state and national worrying about people on food stamps buying candy or coke, to save pennies, they watch the poor like a damn hawk but let millionaires rape children in the biggest pedo ring in history.

Wilsoniumite 3 hours ago | |

That's a very sad outlook.

This problem is hard because it's hard to spot, but the fix is actually surprisingly easy (at least in the short term).

The scale is on the order of climate change. If the academic base of economists were to unify behind this theory, change could happen. Only a few countries need to adopt this to show merit to the idea (although, that will take like a decade to truly show). Unlike climate change though this isn't fighting growth, it can recover it, and it's much, much easier to implement. That's why I think it can be truly bipartisan.