I can only speak for the UK. But given the fiscal headroom for the foreseeable, I don’t see where else it would come from? If they don’t have it, they either borrow or print it?

For any meaningful scheme, you would be talking about hundreds of billions.

That's were things such as wealth tax kicks in.

The money that just sits untaxed on the vaults of the extremely wealthy should be taxed to finance this.

This is trickle down economics done right. Remove money from the wealthy and redistribute it to benefit society.

No one has money "sitting in vaults"

They keep money in bonds (lending money to people, corps, govs that need it), stocks (raise the value of companies that are valuable thus letting them borrow more etc) or they consume which pays for all the poor peoples salaries

The immaturity of people when it comes to economics is a problem

You're broadly correct.

Don't let the uneducated messenger distract from UBI itself though. Proposed seriously, it's about reducing asset values and high incomes to redistribute that value to everyone who isn't losing more value than the UBI. The real argument is that it would mean short-term economic costs to build a more robust system with a bigger pool of people with the safety net and risk appetite to start/join companies.

The interesting question about UBI is how to finance it. It's far from a settled question what would be the best or even just a good way to do so.

You seem to have something very specific in mind?

I don't really. You're right, ofc. The details about what taxes pay for UBI and who pays them are obviously of key importance.

I don't claim to have the answers. My point is just that there are interesting benefits that are worth weighing against those costs.

Btw, land value taxes (or as a second best, property taxes) are worth looking into.

In the UK, council taxes also roughly have the right structure. Though the discount you get for unoccupied property is crazy. It's exactly the opposite of what you'd want to encourage.

> They keep money in bonds (lending money to people, corps, govs that need it), stocks (raise the value of companies that are valuable thus letting them borrow more etc)

That's wealth that should be taxed.

> The immaturity of people when it comes to economics is a problem

I agree. Just not in the way you imagine.

> That's wealth that should be taxed.

Wealth taxes are fairly controversial, and not very common around the world.

But they have been implemented in a few places, and we can look at what real world effects have been observed.

> The money that just sits untaxed on the vaults of the extremely wealthy should be taxed to finance this.

Approximately no one has vaults of gold like Scrooge McDuck. The richest people largely hold their wealth in company shares.

So you are suggesting to raise the cost of capital for companies?

> Approximately no one has vaults of gold like Scrooge McDuck

Yeah, I also like to be pedantically literal when I don't have good counter arguments. I feel your pain, brother.

You can replace my "vaults of gold" analogy for propety, yachts, real estate, company shares, etc. Whatever someone holds in their own name that constitutes wealth above a certain threshold should be taxed.

> So you are suggesting to raise the cost of capital for companies?

Corporations also should contribute to society, as they also benefit from the common infrastructure.

There's this pervasive idea that "if we tax the rich they will stop investing in companies and us filthy peasants will be out of jobs" which is the bullshit of the ages. If there is demand for goods and services, there will be those that supply them.

But the company whose shares we are talking about is out there in the real world and doing stuff with its capital. It's not idle.

I am talking about the individual holding the shares.

Are you just being obtuse to deflect from the actual argument?

Tax incidence is a non-trivial topic. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence

Basically, the people a tax is nominally levied upon don't necessarily bear the economic burden, and vice versa.

A silly example: do you think it makes a difference if your employer transfers your whole gross income into your account and you pay income taxes, or whether your employer pays the income tax first, and then transfers you the net amount?

I would imagine the extremely wealthy have passports, global homes, and the vaults you mention might well be in Switzerland.

The extremely wealthy will also have an army of lawyers and accountants to mitigate against this, not to mention trusts and holding companies.

It’s a nice idea, but the implementation is tricky.

I’m not arguing for them, just being realistic.

What they actually have is an inordinate power to lobby governments.

No army of lawyers would save them from actually effective regulation.

Voting with your feet will save you from that.

Of course, if you want to do business in country X, you are subject to the laws of that country X.

But otherwise, you can leave that country and settle down elsewhere and do your business there. No matter how 'actually effective' that regulation is. (Unless you do an 'East Germany' and don't allow people to leave.)

> Voting with your feet will save you from that.

When relevant countries act in tandem, it would work.

I would really like to see a billionaire vote with their feet to protect their wealth by moving ro Somalia or something like that.

A country can also limit their ability to operate from abroad when they move.

In real life, value producing is inherently tied to the society which allows value to be produced.

As you've figured out, you can't sustainably raise a lot of money via printing. At least not in real terms when adjusted for inflation. (Of course, in nominal terms you can raise arbitrary amounts by printing.)

Now how to finance a UBI is a good question.

A land value tax would be an interesting choice. Especially since a UBI will probably lead to higher rents.