To Mr. Sam Altman, Elon Musk,
Mark Zuckerberg, Chris Hughes, and Sir Richard Branson.
Dear Mr. Sam Altman, Elon
Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Chris Hughes, and Sir Richard Branson.
According to a WSJ video (https://www.wsj.com/video/series/moving-upstream/basic-income-the-free-money-experiments-moving-upstream/AAF2641C-53F5-4C32-99C9-C0BD8409D7C6),
or just the Internet search, you all ponder the idea of a basic income.
The point of this publication is simple:
STOP discussing the idea of a basic
income
(leave it to politologists, sociologists, etc.)
START discussing the mechanism
of
the realization!
You may have different reasons
for that (see Appendix I for more), but the best strategy for moving ahead
would be zeroing up on a practical
mechanism for a possible
experimentation, and a future realization of the idea.
Currently, all proponents and
opponents of a basic income discuss only one possible mechanism for the realization
of the idea (https://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/wage-subsidy-better-way-help-poor-7778.html),
which is the governmental redistribution of funds collected via taxation.
In my view, the governmental redistribution of funds
collected via taxation is the least
probable approach, and
will not happen in America (at least any soon). In America, taxes are as sacred
and untouchable as cows in India. This situation will not change any soon,
because the view on taxation is deeply rooted into American traditions, into “what
does it mean to be American”, into psychology of general public. Accepting this
as a fact, one needs to search for mechanisms outside of the taxation
(preferably, based on behavioral economics, which proves that most people make
economic decisions based on their “feelings” more often than based on thorough calculations;
in short, psychology leads economy; https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/09/nobel-prize-in-economics-richard-thaler).
That is why I propose a
creation (eventually) of a “Federal Entitlement Fund” (or a “Federal Fund for a
Basic Income”, or a “Federal Fund for the Advancement of the Living”, or a
“Federal Fund for the Advancement of the Living Conditions)”.
The Fund will function in a
way similar to the Federal Reserve and the Supreme Court, i.e. the board will
be composed based on a consensus between the Congress and the White House (and,
maybe, the Governor’s Association); but the board will function independently
from all other business and government entities, and the members are elected
for life.
The goals and functioning of
the board will be:
1.
Establishing on
the annual basis the minimum level of the “States decent living” (may be
different for different States).
2.
The board will be
annually providing a formal definition of a “decent living”.
3.
Every citizen and
permanent resident who makes less than that level can apply for the financial
help.
4.
Every U.S. based
business will have to pay a one-time annual fee.
5.
The amount of the
fee will be determined by the board depending on the number of the requests,
and the total amount of the funds needed to grant those requests (and the funds
required for the functioning of the Fund, so the functioning of the Fund would
not depend on the federal budget).
6.
The amount of the
fee will be determined by the board according to the formula set by the board
on the annual basis.
7.
The fee is NOT a
tax, it does NOT go to a federal budget, it CANNOT be used on anything else but
the activities set by the board.
8.
If needed, the
board may file a request to the budgeting entities to request funds from the
federal budget.
It is very important to
stress, that only the board will be setting up the targets and the brackets for
collecting and distributed the funds, and it will be done annually (without a
need for a long legislative proses).
Results:
1.
This approach
will lead to ensuring that every US citizen will have a “decent living”
conditions.
2.
More importantly,
this approach will become a strong psychological
instrument; this approach will provide
incentives for business owners to stimulate the wages of the employees,
because that would result in decreasing the number of requests to the fund,
which would lead to the decrease (and maybe even a complete elimination) of the
fee.
3.
More importantly,
this approach will become a strong
psychological instrument; this approach will provide incentives for business owners to stimulate job creation, because
that would result in decreasing the number of requests to the fund, which would
lead to the decrease (and maybe even a complete elimination) of the fee.
4.
More importantly,
this approach will become a strong
psychological instrument; this approach will provide incentives for business owners to join forces and to reach out to
legislative bodies to push for laws and regulations which would stimulate job
creation and wage growth, because that would result in decreasing the
number of requests to the fund, which would lead to the decrease (and maybe even
a complete elimination) of the fee.
This approach can be attempted
starting on a scale of one company, or one State.
All business owners who would
generally support the idea of a basic income could join the funds and create
one mutual fund for the initial experimental program. Of course, that would
mean that each individual business owner would lost his or her name and ownership
over his or her individual program. However, on the other hand, that would mean
that all business owners involved in the project would mutually own the idea.
This collaboration would greatly increase the effectiveness of the program.
Of course, this collaboration
will not happen until some of the business owner starts reaching out to other
business owners, inviting to discuss the creation of the Fund.
Appendix I.
The idea of a basic income is
not new: http://basicincome.org/basic-income/history/.
For many business owners
pondering the idea of a basic income, the reason behind the idea is mostly
practical: advances in automisation, robotisation, machine leaning and AI
(which so far is far from HI; https://teachologyforall.blogspot.com/2017/04/vc.html)
may lead to many people not having a good paying job, and the increase in the
number of economically depressed people may lead to social unrest.
However, the idea of basic
income has deep moral and philosophical roots.
One should start from
questions like:
· Why do people have to work for having a good living?
· Why do people work and still not having a good living?
· Why do people have to work?
· Do people have to work?
· Who and how decides who and how much a person is a valuable
person?
· How much do people need to work to be considered
valuable?
· How many people need to consider someone valuable in
order that one would deserve some financial reword?
· How many people need to consider someone’s work
valuable in order that one would deserve some financial reword?
· How to assess the importance of a person?
· Does the amount of money one has correlates to the
one’s social weight and importance?
· Does the amount of money one has reflects the
significant of work done by the one?
· Does the amount of money one has reflects the amount
of work done by the one?
· Is a person who has ten times more money than another
person also ten times more valuable for the society?
· How much different factors are reflected in the total
worth of a person?
· What is “wealth”?
· Who are true wealth creators? (http://the3dforce.blogspot.com/2017/09/wealth.html)
For example, when an owner of
a company issuing IPO becomes a billionaire, how much of that is due to the
talent of the owner, how much of that is due to the effort of the owner, and
how much of that due to other factors, like good timing, good luck, greed. The
latter – greed – is related to the actions of the people who have decided how
many stocks to print, what price to set, and who and how much would also profit
from the mere fact of a stock offering.
But the true philosophical and
moral question is related to the nature of human activities, including work.
One may think that almost all people are naturally,
intrinsically lazy, and without fear for their existence they would never work.
Or.
One may think that almost all people are naturally,
intrinsically creative, and – if given an opportunity – would work even without
fear for their existence.
Depending on the general view
on the human nature people would have opposite vies on the very idea of a basic
income.
For example, if people are
intrinsically lazy, they do not deserve any income besides pay for their work.
If that income is not enough, it is the fault of those people.
If people are intrinsically
creative, all people deserve a “decent life”, and if someone does not make enough
money, it is not his or her fault but a glitch in the social-economic system.
If someone gets money but does not work, maybe that person just cannot work
(too yang, too old, too sick, too undereducated)?
Of course, answers to such
questions like: “What is the nature of human activity?”, or “What is the
mission of human subjects?”, or “What are those intrinsic norms which govern
people’s actions?” would only be a beginning of a long and broad philosophical
discussion.
Appendix II:
The same approach can be used
to decrease spending on health insurance, and to increase the number of insured
citizens via a creation (eventually) of a “Federal Health Care Fund”.
The Fund will function in a
way similar to the Federal Reserve and the Supreme Court, i.e. the board will
be composed based on a consensus between the Congress and the White House (and,
maybe, the Governor’s Association); but the board will function independently
from all other business and government entities, and the members are elected
for life.
The goals and functioning of
the board will be:
1.
Establishing on
the annual basis the minimum level of the “States health insurance coverage”
(may be different for different States).
2.
Every citizen and
permanent resident who does not have health insurance coverage can apply for
the financial help to cover medical expenses.
3.
Every U.S. citizen
and a U.S. based business will have to pay a one-time annual fee.
4.
The amount of the
fee will be determined by the board depending on the number of the requests,
and the total amount of the fund need to grant those requests.
5.
The amount of the
fee will be determined by the board according to the formula set by the board
on the annual basis.
6.
The fee is NOT a
tax, it does NOT go to a federal budget, it CANNOT be used on anything else but
the activities set by the board.
7.
If needed, the
board may file a request to the budgeting entities to request funds from the
federal budget.
Results:
1.
This approach
will lead to ensuring that every US citizen will have sufficient health
insurance.
2.
More importantly,
this approach will become a strong psychological instrument; this approach will
provide incentives for business owners to provide sufficient health insurance,
because that would result in decreasing the number of requests to the fund,
which would lead to the decrease (and maybe even a complete elimination) of the
fee.
3.
More importantly,
this approach will become a strong psychological instrument; this approach will
provide incentives for business owners to extend the health insurance coverage
in the various forms, because that would result in decreasing the number of
requests to the fund, which would lead to the decrease (and maybe even a
complete elimination) of the fee.
4.
More importantly,
this approach will become a strong psychological instrument; this approach will
provide incentives for business owners to reach out to healthcare providers and
healthcare insurers to make them to lower the cost of the healthcare, which
would lead to the decrease (and maybe even a complete elimination) of the fee.
Appendix III.
When someone tells us that
“this is the way to do it just because it has been done that way for years and
decades”, we all should ask “but what about Donald Trump? He broke all the
rules of political engagement, and of a Presidential campaign, and succeeded,
despite the disbelief of all major political and social analysts. Donald Trump
is a clear proof that even the least expected things can happen”.
Of course, we could also just
turn to a history in general, or to the history of science, to see how wide-spread
views and opinions (“The Earth is flat”) have been replaced by new views and
opinions (“The Earth is round”).
Nowadays, we can expect that
the same type of an opinion change can happen again, but this time in politics
and economics.
Let’s take a look at taxes,
for example.
The conventional models do
not work anymore. If nothing will be done, the federal government may become
insolvent simply due to payments related to financing the government debt. Another
extreme possibility is cutting all government support to low income citizens but
to risk a social instability. Standard models do not offer any other options except
theses two.
In a situation like this, all ideas should be welcome and discussed
and analyzed.
For example, an idea of raising taxes on everyone.
It is assumed that raising
taxes on people will automatically make their life worse – because people will
have left with less money.
However, this assumption is
too general.
Raising taxes may be
complimented by other legislative actions, which could lead simultaneously to a
drop in the cost of living.
For example, a household
would have to pay $300 more in annual taxes, but the cost of food would drop so
the same household would spend $500 less a year.
That would increase the level
of living.
This example shows that statement
“raising taxes always lowers
standard of living” is wrong, in general. Only the complete analysis of all possibilities
can demonstrate the net effect of any proposed tax/financial reform.
Appendix IV.
Innovation, vision, creativity, an ability to think outside of a box, an ability to think are important in business, in venture capital adventures, in R&D for new devices, new designs, new applications.
But innovation, vision, creativity, an ability to think outside of a box, an ability to think are also important in social designing (including education:e.g. http://www.teachology.xyz/30uS.html, or https://teachologyforall.blogspot.com/2017/04/vc.html; or https://teachologyforall.blogspot.com/2017/03/YidanPrize.html; etc.).
Appendix V.
An original post on taxes and tax cuts:
http://the3dforce.blogspot.com/2017/11/taxcode.html
Appendix IV.
Innovation, vision, creativity, an ability to think outside of a box, an ability to think are important in business, in venture capital adventures, in R&D for new devices, new designs, new applications.
But innovation, vision, creativity, an ability to think outside of a box, an ability to think are also important in social designing (including education:e.g. http://www.teachology.xyz/30uS.html, or https://teachologyforall.blogspot.com/2017/04/vc.html; or https://teachologyforall.blogspot.com/2017/03/YidanPrize.html; etc.).
Appendix V.
An original post on taxes and tax cuts:
http://the3dforce.blogspot.com/2017/11/taxcode.html
