[cassianoleal]

> This is not a political post

> I’m aware of the irony of this statement. Everything is political.

This is a horrible cop-out. Sure, everything is political to an extent.

The subject of the article though, taxes, is political in nature. There is no way to discuss taxes outside of politics. Taxes are one of the most political subjects there can ever be, and trying to untangle them just means your argument will have exactly zero relation to reality.

[Wilsoniumite]

This is true, but we also have monetary policy which for the longest time we have thought of as and tried to make apolitical. I would argue this is almost just monetary policy, and that's why I set this up as something that a central bank should do. It uses the word "Tax" but it really hardly is a tax.

[cassianoleal]

Monetary policy is not apolitical, as much as neoliberals will try to make it look like so. When a central bank increases interest rates, it's the poorer who can't buy houses, and can't get credit; it's the poorer who will receive fewer and lower quality public services, etc. There is no way to disconnect one thing from the other.

Furthermore, as others in the comment section have noted, VAT is an extremely regressive tax. The poor spend all their money. The rich spend close to none (and arguably will spend exactly 0 of their own UBI), and are the ones who benefit the most from consumption.

The poor will pay for their own UBI, plus for the UBI of the rich, plus for the products and services they have to consume which as noted will make the rich richer.

Your proposed scheme will expand inequality. Like I said, none of this is or can ever be apolitical.

[Wilsoniumite]

The rich spend close to none of their wealth, but they do still, in absolute dollars, spend more than the poor per individual. This means the VAT collects more from the spending of a rich person than of someone that is poor. The full construct with a UBI is not regressive, and is actually progressively redistributive.

[cassianoleal]

> spend more than the poor per individual

This is meaningless, when there's so many fewer reach people than poor.