In the US, could states implement UBI in a post scarcity society {Universal Basic Income}

Great Debates
1

The US is a nation heavily divided by tribalism.

Whites vs. POC
Christians vs. other beliefs and non-beliefs
Patriarchs vs. Feminists
Native born vs. Immigrants

Because of that, passing UBI on a national level will be hard because whites, christians, patriarchs and native born will oppose it becuase they will be afraid it’ll benefit POC, non-christians and atheists, feminists and immigrants.

This is a major factor in social security. When social security was passed, it had to be passed to exclude jobs that black people worked in (agriculture and domestic servants). The program was updated in the 1950s to include these groups. When FDR tried to pass universal health care, southern whites opposed it for fear it would lead to health care for black people and integration. Reagan and his ‘inner city welfare queen’ which is a dog whistle for a black woman. All the talk about immigrants getting health care and benefits through the ACA, etc.

The labor movement and feminist movement were originally designed to exclude POC too. The US has a rich history of social and economic progress being designed to exclude marginalized people.

So point being, American culture will not accept nationwide UBI anytime soon due to all the tribal divisions. So can blue states implement UBI in a post-scarcity economy?

Could California heavily tax the owners of the AI and robots, and distribute the revenue to their citizens? I know there is a risk that the companies will move their headquarters out of California, but if they are still selling products in California would California have jurisdiction to tax them based on that?

Thats one of the techniques being looked at to resolve companies hiding all their profits in tax havens. Instead of taxing them based on where they hide their profits, you tax them based on where they sell their products. So if Google gets 10% of its Revenue in Germany, then 10% of its revenue is taxed by Germany at German rates.

Would anything like this work on a state wide level to get UBI? I could see the US descending into fascism before it adopts nationwide UBI seeing how dysfunctional we are as a society.

2

Alaska at least already has the basis of a system in place that could accomplish this:

Use that as a blueprint, and I can’t see why any other State couldn’t do the same, if they could find the revenue to fund it.

3

The Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) for 2024 was set at $1,702.00 per eligible resident. This total includes a base dividend of $1,403.83 and a one-time $298.17 energy relief payment approved by the legislature to help offset rising energy costs.

https://dor.alaska.gov/department-of-revenue/news-detail/2024/09/19/department-of-revenue-announces-2024-permanent-fund-dividend-amount-and-energy-relief

This is too low to be significant.

What would happen is that the very poor in non-UBI states would migrate to the UBI states.

4

The issue is states have no control over who moves there and only limited control over taxation.

So you’d have lots of people, for whom being paid UBI would be a bit deal, move there. And the companies and rich people who you’d need to tax to pay for it would move to other states.

5

That’s why I said “A Basis For”. The fundamental system is there, and works, it just needs the funding. The point is, there’s no legal impediment to such income schemes, it will come down to politics.

6

Sorta.

IMO it’ll come down to the states having no way to raise enough revenue to support meaningful UBI.

Only the Feds have the practical power to tax at that level.

Alaska, like Norway, has an extractive industry they can tap for the money. Other states … don’t.

7

Add a residency requirement. Long enough that people won’t move there just for an eventual UBI, but long term residents are taken care of.

8

Alaska has a low population and huge natural resources that can be cheaply extracted and easily sold. And they still don’t provide a “basic income”.

I’m not sure what a post-scarcity society would look like, but presumably there would still be people assembling micro-electronics, picking lettuce, slaughtering cows, and picking up garbage. Asking a working stiff to give a huge hunk of their salary to support an able bodied stranger who has decided not to work is a tough sell.

I believe there would be a permanent class of healthy non- workers, and that class would gradually expand. I feel that way because I can absolutely see myself (and several friends and relatives) choosing that option. I take a degree of pride in not caring about luxuries.

Socialized healthcare and assistance for the disabled are good ideas, as are temporary unemployment benefits. Permanent automatic unemployment benefits? Probably not in the current world.

9

I question if the “very poor” will have the means to move.

We certainly don’t see a mass exodus of poor folks from one place to another based on benefits at present.

10

The other exodus would be businesses moving from the Taxed-enough-to-fund-UBI states to the other ones.

That’s the magic of federal legislation over state. They have a border that can (mostly) keep businesses in and people out. So everyone who’s inside the country get the same deal and can’t practically run next door for a better deal.

The original federal minimum wage legislation was passed back in the early days of the Depression precisely to prevent states from enacting a ruinous race to the bottom for workers’ wages. I imagine a different set of legislative actions would happen this time if a new Depression is first triggered, then mismanaged, by federal executive ineptitude.

11

Some Native American tribes have something similar, usually based on shares in a communally-owned casino. For some, it’s a small stipend, but it can be as high as $84,000 (for the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux).

Of course, it can be a mixed blessing. For some, the per-capita payments enable getting a college education or starting up a new business, while others use it to enable a harmful lifestyle.

12

Or not. Businesses aren’t especially attracted to low taxes; they’ll take tax cuts of course, but many places have cut taxes and then got blindsided when businesses moved out anyway.

This is because business are not in fact run for the profit of the business; they are run for the benefit of the managers and executives who run them. Businesses are things, they don’t actually have agency or desires, while the people running them most certainly do.

So what actually attract businesses are things that make life pleasant for the people running the business, not low taxes. Nice schools, golf courses, amenities in general and so on. Mind, that doesn’t stop them from self-sabotaging and demanding lower taxes anyway, which would destroy the very things that attract them.

If an UBI makes it better for them, they’ll move there, taxes or not.

13

The businesses I was referring to are mostly the ones where the owner(s) are the management. Big corps are, as you say, less likely to care about profitability as opposed to C-suite wages and perks.

14

This is a concern, but even federal legislation won’t fix it if the rich can just move to Bermuda or some other tax haven.

As I mentioned, one possible way to deal with it is to tax based on where the consumption happens. If California consumes 30 billion in products from company X, then the net profits on 30 billion in gross revenue from company X could be taxed in California.

But in order for UBI to truly work, you need a global basement tax rate. With nations rushing to the bottom to offer lower taxes for the rich, thats not going to happen. It was my understanding that there was an attempt to create a global 15% minimum corporate tax, I don’t know what happened with that.

However if major rich countries (NATO nations, east asia, etc) get together and all agree to sanction any nation that is a tax haven, that may make fewer places for the rich to run and hide.

15

Putting post scarcity aside, historically, a lot of Republicans favored UBI with the idea that they then could get rid of the rest of the social safety net. Right now, UBI polls badly and is favored by Democrats. But I see no reason opinion couldn’t swing back, leading to passage.

As for a post-scarcity society, this requires an implausible change to human nature.

Won’t gold always be scarce?

Won’t the original Mona Lisa always be scarce?

People will always desire that which is scarce. They covet what their neighbor has and they do not.

16

Some things will always be scarce. Thats why Rolls Royce and Ferrari do not produce that many cars, the scarcer they are the more desirable they are. Humans crave status, and possessing scarce and expensive resources is a sign of status.

Having said that, a post scarcity society is one where AI and robots do 95% of the work that is currently done by humans. A world where we could basically live the same lifestyles we live now, but without having to work for it. People would still want to live in nice houses in san francisco, and demand would still vastly outstrip supply for that.

But pretty much everyone could have a home, food, transportation, entertainment, medical care, etc in a post scarcity society.

The only problem is no one would have the money to buy any of it unless the wealth created by AI and robotics was distributed to the public in a method other than working.

As for republicans pushing UBI instead of a welfare states, thats likely to save money. They probably feel 1 trillion in UBI is cheaper than 3 trillion in health care, social security, SNAP, EBT, etc.

17

The issue is not “the rich” and their personal income taxes. The issue is corporate income tax. “The rich” are a drop in the bucket compared to the Fortune 1000.

18

That’s not what “post scarcity” means; forget human nature, physics gets in the way of literal post scarcity. It’s not like you can make a planet for everyone who wants one, for example.

No, it means that common goods, especially basic ones are cheap (or free) and easily available; not that literally everything is available in an infinite amount.

As for the status argument, that’s an assumption based on scarcity. To use a famous example, being fat used to be consider high status because food was scarce, so being fat meant wealth. In a post scarcity society owning a big pile of stuff just won’t be a status symbol anymore, precisely because anyone can do it. Instead something else will become a status symbol to replace it.

19

Anything scarce will be the new status symbol. What that is though, I don’t know. Whatever AI and robots cannot produce.

Ocean front real estate will be a huge status symbol in a post scarcity society. Living in a 2000 square foot home on the ocean front will have far more status than living in a 10,000 square foot mansion in the middle of Iowa.

People will probably start buying handmade stuff that is inferior to the automation made objects just to show they have enough wealth to buy objects created by humans. Going to a human doctor who is far less competent than a robot doctor will be seen as a status symbol. ‘Hand made’ will be the new status symbol. That and real estate in highly desirable locations.

20

They’re the same thing basically. Corporations are people as Mitt Romney said. A small number of people own most of the stocks in corporations.