Also it would probably come as a replacement for all other social security measures as is the liberal wet dream. This would reduce bureaucracy but it would also be a way of shutting people up, you don’t have enough money to get by? Well you get your UBI so it’s got to be enough, if it isn’t then tough luck I guess. The problem with Volt is that we don’t even know their exact position on this because they’re mostly just blurting out feel-good marketing slogans.
but it would also be a way of shutting people up, you don’t have enough money to get by? Well you get your UBI so it’s got to be enough, if it isn’t then tough luck I guess.
And the same thing cannot be said if you have means-tested welfare?
At least in the German discussion about this it’s generally understood that it’d replace regular unemployment and disability payments, but not abolish things like say money the blind get because braille displays are expensive. Our social systems already work with averages.
That the payment is sufficient is already included in the “B” term, btw. In German terms it’s supposed to cover the socio-cultural existence minimum: Enough to live and participate in society.
I think you don’t really understand where the idea of a negative income tax comes from and how it is imagined. Hint: Milton Friedman. If liberals talk about UBI, they mean a Chicago style solution.
Bullshit. Pirates are also liberals and most definitely prefer the UBI+flat tax model.
It might be inconvenient for the let’s call it tankie-adjacent left that liberals support an idea that’d actually be a net benefit for workers, OTOH a proper Marxist should be able to sort that under “yet another curious contradiction inherent in the system” and then vote in favour for it lest being considered an accelerationist.
But we’re not talking about the pirates or Marxists or anyone, we’re talking about Volt and what they would implement. Since they aren’t telling us what they’d do we can only speculate, and I’m telling you this is what liberals usually want. And unless Volt delivers any proof that they’re different, I’m going to assume the default.
If you look at the German program they’re mentioning increasing income and wealth inequality as a problem and are specifically mentioning the increase in low-wage work as a mistake. They want to make the tax system more progressive as well as bring taxation of capital gains more in line with existing taxation on income. In translation, that means tax hikes for the rich. Also stuff like cracking down on tax evasion and tax havens, also targeted at the rich (practically impossible to evade taxes as a worker, here).
Generally speaking there’s a ton of points in there which make them a red flag for parties in ALDE. Greens/EFA (which Volt are part of) might occasionally have neoliberal bouts, but their heart isn’t in it, just as with SocDems and Christian Democrats. Have you considered that your image of liberals in general might be unduly coloured by neolibs? There are liberals who understand that capital can be used to attain the very privileges liberals, back in the days, were keen on denying the nobility. Individually, who have about the same opinion of multinationals as the average worker does of the bosses.
While it’s true that their German program mentions increasing income and wealth inequality as a problem, their proposed solutions seem to be more focused on tweaking the existing system rather than fundamentally changing it.
Tax hikes for the rich are a good start, but it’s not enough. We need a more radical transformation of our economic system, one that prioritizes people and the planet over profits. And I’m not seeing that from Volt.
By the way, I’d love to hear your thoughts on Mera25’s proposals, such as the unconditional pension guarantee, the four-day workweek, and the universal basic dividend. Do you think these ideas have merit, or are they too radical for your taste?
I think that they’re just as much reformist as Volt’s stuff. And terminally parliamentarist. But that’s not so much a criticism as an observation, we certainly should get what we can get out of the parliamentary procedure, imperfect as it is.
TBH I’m not even sure whether revolution is possible any more, we might have already had it with the institution of liberal democracy but still have to get over the hangover. As in: The tipping point has been crossed, but old shackles are still dangling on our collective psyche, getting rid of them will simply take time. The state will not go out in flames, but wither. Or, paraphrasing Kerry Thornley: Failing that, it at least won’t annoy anyone any more.
Negative tax is a way to implement UBI. It’s mathematically equivalent to paying out a flat sum and taking a flat tax which is easier to administer but then there’s the political opinions of the mathematically uninclined asking “why are we giving billionaires money”. (And yes both schemes are progressive, flat tax alone wouldn’t be).
They’re even in favour of doing it on the EU level, and argue that the TFEU already contains the language necessary for the EU to do it.
individuals earning below a set threshold receive payments instead of paying taxes
So it is not universal. It is not UBI. The difference it not billionaires but the middle class. The upper middle class may not need a UBI, but if you give it to them, they would be inclined to vote to keep it. If you only give a non-universal/progressive negative-tax/income, the middle class would be inclined to vote to vote to keep UBI way below “basic”. Like tax breaks offered to the middle class, I hate them, but they are basically impossible to reverse because they are so popular. A UBI and whatever you want to call this is very different policies.
But they are not for a UBI, right? Because I think they want a negative tax, not something that is a universal income.
Also it would probably come as a replacement for all other social security measures as is the liberal wet dream. This would reduce bureaucracy but it would also be a way of shutting people up, you don’t have enough money to get by? Well you get your UBI so it’s got to be enough, if it isn’t then tough luck I guess. The problem with Volt is that we don’t even know their exact position on this because they’re mostly just blurting out feel-good marketing slogans.
And the same thing cannot be said if you have means-tested welfare?
At least in the German discussion about this it’s generally understood that it’d replace regular unemployment and disability payments, but not abolish things like say money the blind get because braille displays are expensive. Our social systems already work with averages.
That the payment is sufficient is already included in the “B” term, btw. In German terms it’s supposed to cover the socio-cultural existence minimum: Enough to live and participate in society.
I think you don’t really understand where the idea of a negative income tax comes from and how it is imagined. Hint: Milton Friedman. If liberals talk about UBI, they mean a Chicago style solution.
Bullshit. Pirates are also liberals and most definitely prefer the UBI+flat tax model.
It might be inconvenient for the let’s call it tankie-adjacent left that liberals support an idea that’d actually be a net benefit for workers, OTOH a proper Marxist should be able to sort that under “yet another curious contradiction inherent in the system” and then vote in favour for it lest being considered an accelerationist.
But we’re not talking about the pirates or Marxists or anyone, we’re talking about Volt and what they would implement. Since they aren’t telling us what they’d do we can only speculate, and I’m telling you this is what liberals usually want. And unless Volt delivers any proof that they’re different, I’m going to assume the default.
If you look at the German program they’re mentioning increasing income and wealth inequality as a problem and are specifically mentioning the increase in low-wage work as a mistake. They want to make the tax system more progressive as well as bring taxation of capital gains more in line with existing taxation on income. In translation, that means tax hikes for the rich. Also stuff like cracking down on tax evasion and tax havens, also targeted at the rich (practically impossible to evade taxes as a worker, here).
Generally speaking there’s a ton of points in there which make them a red flag for parties in ALDE. Greens/EFA (which Volt are part of) might occasionally have neoliberal bouts, but their heart isn’t in it, just as with SocDems and Christian Democrats. Have you considered that your image of liberals in general might be unduly coloured by neolibs? There are liberals who understand that capital can be used to attain the very privileges liberals, back in the days, were keen on denying the nobility. Individually, who have about the same opinion of multinationals as the average worker does of the bosses.
While it’s true that their German program mentions increasing income and wealth inequality as a problem, their proposed solutions seem to be more focused on tweaking the existing system rather than fundamentally changing it.
Tax hikes for the rich are a good start, but it’s not enough. We need a more radical transformation of our economic system, one that prioritizes people and the planet over profits. And I’m not seeing that from Volt.
By the way, I’d love to hear your thoughts on Mera25’s proposals, such as the unconditional pension guarantee, the four-day workweek, and the universal basic dividend. Do you think these ideas have merit, or are they too radical for your taste?
I think that they’re just as much reformist as Volt’s stuff. And terminally parliamentarist. But that’s not so much a criticism as an observation, we certainly should get what we can get out of the parliamentary procedure, imperfect as it is.
TBH I’m not even sure whether revolution is possible any more, we might have already had it with the institution of liberal democracy but still have to get over the hangover. As in: The tipping point has been crossed, but old shackles are still dangling on our collective psyche, getting rid of them will simply take time. The state will not go out in flames, but wither. Or, paraphrasing Kerry Thornley: Failing that, it at least won’t annoy anyone any more.
Negative tax is a way to implement UBI. It’s mathematically equivalent to paying out a flat sum and taking a flat tax which is easier to administer but then there’s the political opinions of the mathematically uninclined asking “why are we giving billionaires money”. (And yes both schemes are progressive, flat tax alone wouldn’t be).
They’re even in favour of doing it on the EU level, and argue that the TFEU already contains the language necessary for the EU to do it.
Sure, but their’s is not flat
So it is not universal. It is not UBI. The difference it not billionaires but the middle class. The upper middle class may not need a UBI, but if you give it to them, they would be inclined to vote to keep it. If you only give a non-universal/progressive negative-tax/income, the middle class would be inclined to vote to vote to keep UBI way below “basic”. Like tax breaks offered to the middle class, I hate them, but they are basically impossible to reverse because they are so popular. A UBI and whatever you want to call this is very different policies.