Atta boy (or grrl). However, the devil remains in the details. How about where UBI did NOT fail? Were the places where UBI "failed" paying enough to live on, and was that amount designed to keep up with the rising cost of living? Who exactly was passing judgment on the "failed" attempts in the first place? I bet that if we had a UBI equa…
Atta boy (or grrl). However, the devil remains in the details. How about where UBI did NOT fail? Were the places where UBI "failed" paying enough to live on, and was that amount designed to keep up with the rising cost of living? Who exactly was passing judgment on the "failed" attempts in the first place? I bet that if we had a UBI equal to what Congress pays itself, it would be a terrific success (from the point of view of everyone but TPTB, of course).
Universal Basic Income (UBI) is a sham that’s crashed and burned every time it’s been tried, and it’s built on straight-up theft. Look at Finland’s two-year flop or Canada’s Ontario disaster—employment barely budged, and economic stability? Forget it. UBI’s whole game is stealing your money through taxes, ripping off property owners to bankroll a free-for-all handout scheme. It’s not just wrong; it’s a disaster. Pump out $250,000 a year to everyone, and watch the economy tank—people stop working, productivity craters, and the costs spiral into oblivion.
Milton Friedman saw through this garbage decades ago. He trashed government giveaways like UBI for screwing up markets, killing drive, and chaining people to handouts. His fix? A negative income tax for workers busting their asses in the private sector. It rewards effort, not laziness, and doesn’t rob you blind to pay for it. UBI’s a thief in the night; Friedman’s plan actually works.
Universal Basic Income (UBI) is like binge-watching exercise videos while munching on chips and expecting six-pack abs—a fantasy that blatantly disregards the need for real effort. Economically, UBI is dead on arrival: it hands out cash without incentivizing productivity or innovation, leaving the skills and drive that fuel growth untouched. Despite this, UBI lingers in public discourse, often as a shiny promise from politicians chasing votes by appealing to our craving for rewards without responsibility.
In today’s world, where economic power shapes global influence, nations can’t afford to stagnate—real GDP growth isn’t optional, it’s essential. UBI, though, adds nothing to the economic engine; it’s a mirage that promises prosperity but delivers only inertia. Poverty is a real challenge worth tackling, but the answer lies in investing in education and job creation to boost workforce productivity—not in policies that reward doing nothing. UBI doesn’t just fall short; it’s a step backward from the effort-driven progress economies need to thrive.
Imagine the flood of freeloaders these policies would attract from across the globe, drawn by the promise of easy rewards with no effort required—akin to people who watch fitness videos while munching on potato chips, expecting to get in shape without breaking a sweat. Such policies risk turning our great nation into a haven for the unmotivated, all under the guise of progress.
And yet, every article I've read on Friedman's Negative Income Tax describes it as an effective UBI. Meanwhile, who says our current wildly-regressive forms of taxation need exist at all? Scott Smith has observed that a miniscule tax applied to stock transactions would generate enough cash to fund universal healthcare, UBI, free college, replace all other taxes, and pay off the national debt in less than a decade. And, the Constitution suggests that Congress could make all the cash it needs by itself, out of thin air, without having to tax anyone, ever. https://scheerpost.com/2023/06/01/ellen-brown-another-look-at-the-financial-transactions-tax/
Your enthusiasm for bold policy proposals is commendable, but many of the claims you’ve made are either oversimplified or unrealistic. Let’s break this down:
1. Friedman’s Negative Income Tax (NIT) vs. UBI:You’re right that NIT and UBI share similar goals, like reducing poverty, which is why some articles might call NIT an "effective UBI." But they’re fundamentally different. NIT, as proposed by Milton Friedman, is a means-tested program that supplements the income of low earners, phasing out as income rises. UBI, by contrast, is universal and unconditional, paid to everyone regardless of income. NIT incentivizes work through its design, while UBI’s universality raises questions about cost and work disincentives. Conflating the two muddies the waters in this debate.
2. Tax System and Financial Transactions Tax (FTT): I agree that our tax system has regressive elements, like payroll and sales taxes, which disproportionately burden lower earners. But the overall federal tax system, including income taxes, is progressive—higher earners pay a larger share of their income. Rolling back taxes, as you and I both seem to support, would require significant spending cuts, which neither party in Congress has shown much appetite for. Federal spending is projected to exceed $7 trillion in 2025, with deficits already over $1 trillion annually. Without reining in spending, tax cuts are a pipe dream.
As for Scott Smith’s claim about a "minuscule" financial transactions tax (FTT) funding universal healthcare, UBI, free college, replacing all other taxes, and paying off the national debt, that’s wildly optimistic. The Scheerpost article you linked cites estimates that a 0.1% tax on stock trades could raise $777 billion over a decade, and broader FTT proposals might raise trillions. But those numbers are speculative and depend on assumptions about trading volumes, which could plummet if the tax discourages transactions. Even if we accept the most optimistic estimates, the revenue wouldn’t come close to covering your proposed programs, let alone replacing all other taxes or paying off the $34 trillion national debt in a decade. And that’s before considering economic trade-offs, like reduced market liquidity or capital flight to untaxed jurisdictions. An FTT might be worth exploring as a revenue source, but it’s not a magic bullet.
3. Congress Creating Money "Out of Thin Air": You’re technically correct that the Constitution (Article I, Section 8) gives Congress the power to create money, and Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) argues that a government issuing its own currency can fund spending without taxes or borrowing, as long as inflation is controlled. But the practical risks of this approach are enormous. Excessive money creation without fiscal discipline has led to hyperinflation and economic collapse in countries like Weimar Germany, Zimbabwe, and Venezuela. Taxes and borrowing aren’t just revenue tools—they help manage demand and stabilize the currency. Suggesting we can fund everything by printing money ignores these real-world constraints.
4. Free College: I share your concern about college costs—average tuition and fees at public four-year institutions have risen faster than inflation for decades, and student debt now exceeds $1.7 trillion. But universal free college isn’t a serious solution. It risks overconsumption, reduced quality, and underfunding, as seen in some public education systems globally. It would also subsidize students from high-income families who don’t need help, while doing little to address underlying cost drivers like administrative bloat or inefficiencies. Targeted solutions, like expanding Pell Grants, promoting trade schools, or implementing income-based repayment plans, would be more effective without the drawbacks of "free" college.
5. The Ethics of "Free" Services: Beyond the practical issues, there’s a deeper ethical problem with providing services like healthcare, college, or UBI for "free" without requiring any contribution in return. When something is given without reciprocal obligation, it *is* theft, plain and simple. It compels others—taxpayers, workers, or producers—to provide their labor, resources, or wealth without their consent, under threat of legal or financial penalty. For example, "free" healthcare isn’t free—it’s paid for by taxing the earnings of workers, including doctors, nurses, and other professionals, who are effectively forced to provide their services to non-contributors. This is no different from taking someone’s property or labor without compensation, which is the definition of theft. While society has a role in supporting those in genuine need—such as the disabled, elderly, or temporarily unemployed—universal "free" programs that demand nothing in return violate the principle of mutual exchange, erode personal responsibility, and undermine fairness. Any safety net or public service must be designed to encourage work, self-reliance, and contribution, not unconditional handouts.
In short, ambitious policy ideas are great, but they need to be grounded in economic reality and ethical principles, not wishful thinking or coercive redistribution. Rolling back taxes, reforming higher education, and simplifying welfare programs are all worth discussing, but they require hard choices, not utopian promises. In case you didn’t realize socialism doesn’t work and this country is already more socialist than we’re capitalists.
In short, the arguments you offer are only “ethical” and “realistic” from the viewpoint of the rich wanting to retain their ability to exploit everyone else.
Currently, the Fed is creating money out of thin air, and handing it to the ppl who need it least, so they can buy everything in sight (& then let the working poor pay the interest on that “loan”). “Real-world constraints” = the necessity of keeping creating-money-out-of-thin-air a privilege of the rich, for their own private profit.
Income tax might actually BE progressive, were it not for the 1%’s ability to skate out of it by owning private foundations & taking advantage of all the other loopholes which are available to those with millions and not to the working poor. As for out-of-control spending, I bet that wouldn’t happen IF the rich had to pay ALL the taxes, every single one, by themselves, w/out being allowed to profit in any way from gov’t spending.
If poverty ended, there would be no need to “Means-test” (i.e., to pay bureaucrats nice comfy middle-class salaries to make sure nobody gets too many nickels (except Musk, of course). Funny how nobody seems to worry whether RICH ppl are disincentivized from working, or even being virtuous.
Atta boy (or grrl). However, the devil remains in the details. How about where UBI did NOT fail? Were the places where UBI "failed" paying enough to live on, and was that amount designed to keep up with the rising cost of living? Who exactly was passing judgment on the "failed" attempts in the first place? I bet that if we had a UBI equal to what Congress pays itself, it would be a terrific success (from the point of view of everyone but TPTB, of course).
Universal Basic Income (UBI) is a sham that’s crashed and burned every time it’s been tried, and it’s built on straight-up theft. Look at Finland’s two-year flop or Canada’s Ontario disaster—employment barely budged, and economic stability? Forget it. UBI’s whole game is stealing your money through taxes, ripping off property owners to bankroll a free-for-all handout scheme. It’s not just wrong; it’s a disaster. Pump out $250,000 a year to everyone, and watch the economy tank—people stop working, productivity craters, and the costs spiral into oblivion.
Milton Friedman saw through this garbage decades ago. He trashed government giveaways like UBI for screwing up markets, killing drive, and chaining people to handouts. His fix? A negative income tax for workers busting their asses in the private sector. It rewards effort, not laziness, and doesn’t rob you blind to pay for it. UBI’s a thief in the night; Friedman’s plan actually works.
Universal Basic Income (UBI) is like binge-watching exercise videos while munching on chips and expecting six-pack abs—a fantasy that blatantly disregards the need for real effort. Economically, UBI is dead on arrival: it hands out cash without incentivizing productivity or innovation, leaving the skills and drive that fuel growth untouched. Despite this, UBI lingers in public discourse, often as a shiny promise from politicians chasing votes by appealing to our craving for rewards without responsibility.
In today’s world, where economic power shapes global influence, nations can’t afford to stagnate—real GDP growth isn’t optional, it’s essential. UBI, though, adds nothing to the economic engine; it’s a mirage that promises prosperity but delivers only inertia. Poverty is a real challenge worth tackling, but the answer lies in investing in education and job creation to boost workforce productivity—not in policies that reward doing nothing. UBI doesn’t just fall short; it’s a step backward from the effort-driven progress economies need to thrive.
Imagine the flood of freeloaders these policies would attract from across the globe, drawn by the promise of easy rewards with no effort required—akin to people who watch fitness videos while munching on potato chips, expecting to get in shape without breaking a sweat. Such policies risk turning our great nation into a haven for the unmotivated, all under the guise of progress.
And yet, every article I've read on Friedman's Negative Income Tax describes it as an effective UBI. Meanwhile, who says our current wildly-regressive forms of taxation need exist at all? Scott Smith has observed that a miniscule tax applied to stock transactions would generate enough cash to fund universal healthcare, UBI, free college, replace all other taxes, and pay off the national debt in less than a decade. And, the Constitution suggests that Congress could make all the cash it needs by itself, out of thin air, without having to tax anyone, ever. https://scheerpost.com/2023/06/01/ellen-brown-another-look-at-the-financial-transactions-tax/
Your enthusiasm for bold policy proposals is commendable, but many of the claims you’ve made are either oversimplified or unrealistic. Let’s break this down:
1. Friedman’s Negative Income Tax (NIT) vs. UBI:You’re right that NIT and UBI share similar goals, like reducing poverty, which is why some articles might call NIT an "effective UBI." But they’re fundamentally different. NIT, as proposed by Milton Friedman, is a means-tested program that supplements the income of low earners, phasing out as income rises. UBI, by contrast, is universal and unconditional, paid to everyone regardless of income. NIT incentivizes work through its design, while UBI’s universality raises questions about cost and work disincentives. Conflating the two muddies the waters in this debate.
2. Tax System and Financial Transactions Tax (FTT): I agree that our tax system has regressive elements, like payroll and sales taxes, which disproportionately burden lower earners. But the overall federal tax system, including income taxes, is progressive—higher earners pay a larger share of their income. Rolling back taxes, as you and I both seem to support, would require significant spending cuts, which neither party in Congress has shown much appetite for. Federal spending is projected to exceed $7 trillion in 2025, with deficits already over $1 trillion annually. Without reining in spending, tax cuts are a pipe dream.
As for Scott Smith’s claim about a "minuscule" financial transactions tax (FTT) funding universal healthcare, UBI, free college, replacing all other taxes, and paying off the national debt, that’s wildly optimistic. The Scheerpost article you linked cites estimates that a 0.1% tax on stock trades could raise $777 billion over a decade, and broader FTT proposals might raise trillions. But those numbers are speculative and depend on assumptions about trading volumes, which could plummet if the tax discourages transactions. Even if we accept the most optimistic estimates, the revenue wouldn’t come close to covering your proposed programs, let alone replacing all other taxes or paying off the $34 trillion national debt in a decade. And that’s before considering economic trade-offs, like reduced market liquidity or capital flight to untaxed jurisdictions. An FTT might be worth exploring as a revenue source, but it’s not a magic bullet.
3. Congress Creating Money "Out of Thin Air": You’re technically correct that the Constitution (Article I, Section 8) gives Congress the power to create money, and Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) argues that a government issuing its own currency can fund spending without taxes or borrowing, as long as inflation is controlled. But the practical risks of this approach are enormous. Excessive money creation without fiscal discipline has led to hyperinflation and economic collapse in countries like Weimar Germany, Zimbabwe, and Venezuela. Taxes and borrowing aren’t just revenue tools—they help manage demand and stabilize the currency. Suggesting we can fund everything by printing money ignores these real-world constraints.
4. Free College: I share your concern about college costs—average tuition and fees at public four-year institutions have risen faster than inflation for decades, and student debt now exceeds $1.7 trillion. But universal free college isn’t a serious solution. It risks overconsumption, reduced quality, and underfunding, as seen in some public education systems globally. It would also subsidize students from high-income families who don’t need help, while doing little to address underlying cost drivers like administrative bloat or inefficiencies. Targeted solutions, like expanding Pell Grants, promoting trade schools, or implementing income-based repayment plans, would be more effective without the drawbacks of "free" college.
5. The Ethics of "Free" Services: Beyond the practical issues, there’s a deeper ethical problem with providing services like healthcare, college, or UBI for "free" without requiring any contribution in return. When something is given without reciprocal obligation, it *is* theft, plain and simple. It compels others—taxpayers, workers, or producers—to provide their labor, resources, or wealth without their consent, under threat of legal or financial penalty. For example, "free" healthcare isn’t free—it’s paid for by taxing the earnings of workers, including doctors, nurses, and other professionals, who are effectively forced to provide their services to non-contributors. This is no different from taking someone’s property or labor without compensation, which is the definition of theft. While society has a role in supporting those in genuine need—such as the disabled, elderly, or temporarily unemployed—universal "free" programs that demand nothing in return violate the principle of mutual exchange, erode personal responsibility, and undermine fairness. Any safety net or public service must be designed to encourage work, self-reliance, and contribution, not unconditional handouts.
In short, ambitious policy ideas are great, but they need to be grounded in economic reality and ethical principles, not wishful thinking or coercive redistribution. Rolling back taxes, reforming higher education, and simplifying welfare programs are all worth discussing, but they require hard choices, not utopian promises. In case you didn’t realize socialism doesn’t work and this country is already more socialist than we’re capitalists.
In short, the arguments you offer are only “ethical” and “realistic” from the viewpoint of the rich wanting to retain their ability to exploit everyone else.
I don’t know why substack is re-numbering my replies. They should appear as 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.
Universal healthcare doesn’t HAVE to be funded by taxing anyone, ever.
In which country that has free college has it been detrimental (to someone besides private banksters)?
Currently, the Fed is creating money out of thin air, and handing it to the ppl who need it least, so they can buy everything in sight (& then let the working poor pay the interest on that “loan”). “Real-world constraints” = the necessity of keeping creating-money-out-of-thin-air a privilege of the rich, for their own private profit.
Income tax might actually BE progressive, were it not for the 1%’s ability to skate out of it by owning private foundations & taking advantage of all the other loopholes which are available to those with millions and not to the working poor. As for out-of-control spending, I bet that wouldn’t happen IF the rich had to pay ALL the taxes, every single one, by themselves, w/out being allowed to profit in any way from gov’t spending.
If poverty ended, there would be no need to “Means-test” (i.e., to pay bureaucrats nice comfy middle-class salaries to make sure nobody gets too many nickels (except Musk, of course). Funny how nobody seems to worry whether RICH ppl are disincentivized from working, or even being virtuous.