{"items": [{"author": "Arthur", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/688093992002?comment_id=688099356252", "anchor": "fb-688099356252", "service": "fb", "text": "Discouraging accumulation of wealth through high marginal tax rates is in and of itself a good thing.", "timestamp": "1410795527"}, {"author": "Neil", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/688093992002?comment_id=688100154652", "anchor": "fb-688100154652", "service": "fb", "text": "Jeff, you've been reading my mind. ;-)", "timestamp": "1410796100"}, {"author": "Christopher", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/688093992002?comment_id=688100279402", "anchor": "fb-688100279402", "service": "fb", "text": "I generally like these slogans, but I'm not sure what enacting them would mean in practice. Given the recent fights for the ACA, I suspect basically any of these would be a massive undertaking if they were done top-down, and it seems like most of these would need to be done by the federal government.", "timestamp": "1410796217"}, {"author": "David Chudzicki", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/106120852580068301475", "anchor": "gp-1410796301602", "service": "gp", "text": "Futarchy didn't make the list?\u00a0\nhttp://hanson.gmu.edu/futarchy.html", "timestamp": 1410796301}, {"author": "Logan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/688093992002?comment_id=688100593772", "anchor": "fb-688100593772", "service": "fb", "text": "Jeff for dictator!

Wait, that's not quite right...", "timestamp": "1410796532"}, {"author": "Chris", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/112938759017605010116", "anchor": "gp-1410797064870", "service": "gp", "text": "Scott Alexander likes to point out that switching from opt-in organ donation to opt-out organ donation would instantly save many lives. \u00a0(And maybe there are other policies where changing the default has a large beneficial impact?)", "timestamp": 1410797064}, {"author": "David", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/688093992002?comment_id=688101985982", "anchor": "fb-688101985982", "service": "fb", "text": "Arthur - why aren't you studying for Jeopardy?", "timestamp": "1410797293"}, {"author": "Ben", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/688093992002?comment_id=688102270412", "anchor": "fb-688102270412", "service": "fb", "text": "I really like the idea of a minimum income, but find it hard to make the math work. $10K/year ~= $3T in outlays in the US (aka 80% of current total AFAIK), and we already have people at $10-$20K/yr not getting what they need from the market; it is not clear why shifting everybody should change incentives in what is produced.

I prefer the idea of a minimum lifestyle (yea much sqft, food, etc) with the state doing some coordination to experiment in different development styles (different planning/apt building layout/etc) to maximize value. It is definitely possible to get good value out of small outlays (see Ikea's 300sqft well-appointed rooms) but it takes some planning the market doesn't generally do.", "timestamp": "1410797464"}, {"author": "Chris", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/688093992002?comment_id=688102679592", "anchor": "fb-688102679592", "service": "fb", "text": "The minimum wage was the only one I balked at at first, but given a minimum income, I think it would be feasible. The rest seem great, each on their own.

Is there some way to encourage spending other than taxing wealth? The whole point about taxing wealth causing it to flee is a good one, but I'm not sure how to get around it.", "timestamp": "1410797800"}, {"author": "Eli", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/688093992002?comment_id=688103612722", "anchor": "fb-688103612722", "service": "fb", "text": "If I might add:

* Put an end to the myths of corporate personhood and money as political speech. These are powerful myths which actually diminish the total amount of political speech by privileging those who can afford bullhorns, so to speak, and allowing them to drown out everyone else. Also it makes our election process more of a candidate-selection process from a corporately pre-approved list of status-quo upholders.

* Do things to alter the current trajectory of Neoliberalism and Globalization. Some things include limiting what various financial intermediaries can do with your money (rather than their own), focusing on sustainable, long-term trade relationships, rather than short-term exploitative pacts, and reassessing the growth imperative altogether.

* Incentivize co-operative ownership and workplace democracy. Not only is it more fair, it actually works as well or better than the top down way we've been doing it, especially if you want to add sustainable jobs to the economy in both the industrial and service sectors. Curious? See: Mondragon/The Cleveland Model/Equal Exchange.

Some no-nonsense ones:

* For goodness's sake, end oil subsidies. There's no argument in favor of them. That money could be spent in myriad better ways.

* Stop minting pennies, probably. Now would be a good time to stop.

* Stop pretending we're protecting the environment and actually protect it. If it looks like an extractive industry, walks and talks like an extractive industry, consider placing limits on how it can operate. External costs are borne by those who can least afford to do so, and dirty-energy-jobs aren't really the kinds of jobs people want anyway.

Jeff, I like your list a lot.", "timestamp": "1410798311"}, {"author": "Bryan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/688093992002?comment_id=688104490962", "anchor": "fb-688104490962", "service": "fb", "text": "I guess I'm becoming less and less libertarian as I grow older because I agree with every single one of your policies.

I really hope that a smaller country tries out minimum income because I want to see how it works on smaller scale before deploying to the entire US", "timestamp": "1410798650"}, {"author": "Eli", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/688093992002?comment_id=688104910122", "anchor": "fb-688104910122", "service": "fb", "text": "The initiative\u2019s proponents cheerfully admit they have a struggle ahead of them. \u201cIf we were to hold the vote this Sunday, it would fail terribly,\u201d Straub admits. \u201cBut we have two or three years to make our case.\u201d

http://www.businessweek.com/.../inequality-fight-swiss...", "timestamp": "1410798845"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/688093992002?comment_id=688105533872", "anchor": "fb-688105533872", "service": "fb", "text": "@Ben: \"I really like the idea of a minimum income, but find it hard to make the math work.\"

You're saying you don't think it's affordable for the government to give everyone enough money for them to fund a minimum lifestyle, but you do think it's affordable for the government to directly fund a minimum lifestyle, right? It seems really worth digging into that more, trying to figure out what the government is able to buy that individuals can't. And if so, can we figure out how to make those things more accessible to individuals?

(Or maybe it would turn out that you don't think this is affordable for the government either.)", "timestamp": "1410799126"}, {"author": "Gianna", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/688093992002?comment_id=688105873192", "anchor": "fb-688105873192", "service": "fb", "text": "I find single payor healthcare to be an attractive idea, but people who know a lot more about economics than I do (i.e. my husband) continue to argue that it's not actually the cure-all we like to think it would be. It seems like everyone holds up Canada and the UK as shining examples of single payor, but there are apparently other countries (Switzerland, Germany, maybe France) that do not have single payor, but have something different than we have in the states, whose healthcare systems are better. I say this all as someone who is repeating something I've heard from someone I trust, but you'd be better off going directly to the source...", "timestamp": "1410799411"}, {"author": "Neil", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/688093992002?comment_id=688106182572", "anchor": "fb-688106182572", "service": "fb", "text": "Bryan, most of these are pretty classical libertarian (with the probable exception of single payer). See Thomas Paine and others.", "timestamp": "1410799700"}, {"author": "opted out", "source_link": "#", "anchor": "unknown", "service": "unknown", "text": "this user has requested that their comments not be shown here", "timestamp": "1410800145"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1410800204676", "service": "gp", "text": "@Chris\n\u00a0Opt-out organ donation is good. \u00a0Adding.", "timestamp": 1410800204}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1410800374149", "service": "gp", "text": "@David Chudzicki\n\u00a0I'm not very confident futarchy would work out in practice. Getting the metrics right is very important and they're going to be constantly under attack to separate them from what they're trying to measure.", "timestamp": 1410800374}, {"author": "opted out", "source_link": "#", "anchor": "unknown", "service": "unknown", "text": "this user has requested that their comments not be shown here", "timestamp": "1410800562"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/688093992002?comment_id=688108582762", "anchor": "fb-688108582762", "service": "fb", "text": "@Elliot: \"Given the problems with the massive accumulation of society's wealth in the hands of the top 1%\"

I'm in favor of taxing wealth. I think a land value tax is the best way to do that.", "timestamp": "1410801409"}, {"author": "Logan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/688093992002?comment_id=688108622682", "anchor": "fb-688108622682", "service": "fb", "text": "France has a nice healthcare system. Basic needs are taken care of for the entire population, and a significant portion of most procedures are paid for. Some are covered at a lower level; if people want, they can buy third-party insurance to cover that.

I think it would work well in America. We've already got Medicaid/Medicare bureaucracy in place to manage it, and it removes a lot of the profit incentive (insurance) that currently plagues the USA. It removes the non-payment issues for a lot of poorer people and their most common medical needs. As it is, France spends about half of what the USA does on a per-person basis, and their care is rated much higher than ours.
http://en.wikipedia.org/.../World_Health_Organization...
It's also the most likely to succeed in America, given that you're less likely to hear cries of \"socialism\" and whatever other stupid arguments you hear.

Here's a more recent update of comparisons between wealthy countries: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/.../2014/jun/mirror-mirror", "timestamp": "1410801425"}, {"author": "Logan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/688093992002?comment_id=688108932062", "anchor": "fb-688108932062", "service": "fb", "text": "Jeff, can you elaborate on land value taxation? One major concern is that farmers typically require a lot of land for production, and don't have the cash to deal with taxes. The value of 1000 acres is significant in a lot of areas, but 1000 acres of wheat isn't likely to produce what's needed to pay for the tax on it. While the argument might say they should produce organic foods or something with a higher cash:area ratio, that's really not practical on the large scale.", "timestamp": "1410801680"}, {"author": "Jeremy", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/688093992002?comment_id=688109451022", "anchor": "fb-688109451022", "service": "fb", "text": "Hmm, Jeff, I'm not sure that I agree on a land tax. Certainly in the past land has been a good indicator of wealth, but in a international, mobile society I think it breaks down. What's to stop the super-rich from renting, leasing, traveling, living on yachts, etc? Aside from that it seems like that particularly for the top 1% or .1% the land value stops correlating to overall wealth. There is only so much that one can spend on land and houses, and for the ultra-rich it quickly becomes a negligible part of their overall net worth.", "timestamp": "1410802079"}, {"author": "Victor", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/688093992002?comment_id=688109515892", "anchor": "fb-688109515892", "service": "fb", "text": "Very good ideas, virtually impossible to bring to reality. Hard to even imagine reasonable steps towards making these things happen. For example, good hearted people have been fighting to reduce the military for decades. There was talk of a \"peace dividend\" when the Soviet Union collapsed, but the military has continued to grow, even without any mission. The US still has thousands of nuclear warheads, whose purpose was supposed to be to discourage the USSR from launching their missiles.", "timestamp": "1410802127"}, {"author": "Ben", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/688093992002?comment_id=688109570782", "anchor": "fb-688109570782", "service": "fb", "text": "Google for John Cochrane's idea of \"health status insurance\" - when the risk coverage is separated from the provision of services, incentives start to align beautifully and you start to see things like health systems competing for sick patients, and its an incremental change over what we have now", "timestamp": "1410802172"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/688093992002?comment_id=688109710502", "anchor": "fb-688109710502", "service": "fb", "text": "@Logan: \"Can you elaborate on land value taxation? Farmers typically require a lot of land for production, and don't have the cash to deal with taxes\"

I'm proposing taxing the market value of land, ignoring any structures built on it. Ten acres in downtown manhattan would sell for a lot, so it gets high taxes, whether it has three storey brownstones or a skyscraper. Ten acres far from any city would sell for much less, so the taxes would be much lower.", "timestamp": "1410802287"}, {"author": "Jeremy", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/688093992002?comment_id=688110319282", "anchor": "fb-688110319282", "service": "fb", "text": "Would tying taxes to land alone be a little bit like currency tied to gold? That is to say, there is a limited amount of possible expansion, that can only change by changing the declared value of the land/currency? It seems that in an economy that is no longer based on land (particularly if you consider that the land can be overseas) this doesn't make sense.", "timestamp": "1410802615"}, {"author": "Logan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/688093992002?comment_id=688110858202", "anchor": "fb-688110858202", "service": "fb", "text": "@Jeff I find it hard to believe that taxing only the land value would raise enough revenue without causing other issues, especially given that you want to lower other taxes. I would guess that in states with a lot of agriculture, you'd see rates that are higher than already exist.", "timestamp": "1410802832"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/688093992002?comment_id=688110948022", "anchor": "fb-688110948022", "service": "fb", "text": "@Jeremy: \"land value stops correlating to overall wealth\"

I'd be in favor of taxing all wealth, not just land wealth, if we could figure out how to do it. The problem is most kinds of wealth are somewhat mobile, and rich people can move them out of your jurisdiction if you try and tax them. Land doesn't go anywhere.

Even then, I think taxing land is pretty reasonable. Land is ~18% [1] of private wealth in the US.

[1] $14.5T [2] of $81T [3]
[2] http://www.slate.com/.../value_of_all_land_in_the_united...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_wealth", "timestamp": "1410802846"}, {"author": "opted out", "source_link": "#", "anchor": "unknown", "service": "unknown", "text": "this user has requested that their comments not be shown here", "timestamp": "1410802953"}, {"author": "Jeremy", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/688093992002?comment_id=688111521872", "anchor": "fb-688111521872", "service": "fb", "text": "I think that this is one of those times when the simplest solution is not necessarily the best. Yes, we should tax land. We should probably also tax income.", "timestamp": "1410803105"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/688093992002?comment_id=688114590722", "anchor": "fb-688114590722", "service": "fb", "text": "@Logan, Elliot, Jeremy: Convinced. I've replaced \"If you can balance the budget without income tax get rid of that too\" with \"Keep income tax, maybe raise it, but make it a simple percentage. Guaranteed income progressivizes the taxation.\"", "timestamp": "1410805016"}, {"author": "Logan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/688093992002?comment_id=688115294312", "anchor": "fb-688115294312", "service": "fb", "text": "Jeff: Any consideration for state laws? I am assuming this is federal.", "timestamp": "1410805449"}, {"author": "Ben", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/688093992002?comment_id=688122634602", "anchor": "fb-688122634602", "service": "fb", "text": "While you're at it, I'd propose: (1) universal pre-kindergarten, which (when well-funded and staffed by trained early-childhood educators, as Head Start is often not) seems to have a huge impact on students' (especially low-income students') long-term outcomes; (2) school funding that's not tied to property tax (perhaps taken care of by your new taxation system anyway), so that quality of public schools isn't determined by parents' income; (3) campaign finance reform in some fashion.", "timestamp": "1410809179"}, {"author": "Ben", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/688093992002?comment_id=688124201462", "anchor": "fb-688124201462", "service": "fb", "text": "Jeff Kaufman: I think there are things that govt can do that individuals can't/don't that are straightforward, and some things that are not. The obvious things are bulk purchasing/trading in products to enforce a standard, and investing on a different time horizon; governments that expect to be around forever have different discounting functions than mere humans that die, which enables them to take positions individuals can't. (See also the wealth accrual in endowments that invested in super-long-term interests like timber, which would generally not make sense without enormous capital pools and very-long-term investment horizons.)

In the housing example, individuals have ~0 influence on the type of housing coming into the pipeline; see the disaster of the SF housing situation as an example. Governments can theoretically put in huge orders for units that are individually lower margin, but attractive to contractors because there are so many of them, providing revenue security that is usually reflected in higher margin.

Further, large institutions (like govts) can amortize things they pay for across their inventory to add value more economically than individuals. If each person wanted to hire an interior designer to make a space nice for them, it would be terribly expensive; but a government hiring ten designers and clone-stamping the result before sale allows much lower cost per unit for something that is nicely appointed. It just feels intrinsically obvious that larger and longer-lived actors have different preferences and potentials than tiny, mortal actors like people.", "timestamp": "1410810232"}, {"author": "Ben", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/688093992002?comment_id=688125409042", "anchor": "fb-688125409042", "service": "fb", "text": "Also, unfortunately, the mechanisms to limit the scope of a pilot program are also unconstitutional. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saenz_v._Roe#Background The better your experimental program is, the more likely you are to face obstacles in implementing it without free riders coming in.", "timestamp": "1410811067"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/688093992002?comment_id=688130179482", "anchor": "fb-688130179482", "service": "fb", "text": "@Ben: (2) is excellent; added!", "timestamp": "1410813372"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/688093992002?comment_id=688130269302", "anchor": "fb-688130269302", "service": "fb", "text": "@Ben: (1): I'm not sure pre-k's impact is really that large: http://blog.givewell.org/.../high-quality-study-of-head.../", "timestamp": "1410813439"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/688093992002?comment_id=688130593652", "anchor": "fb-688130593652", "service": "fb", "text": "@Ben: \"the mechanisms to limit the scope of a pilot program are also unconstitutional\"

It looks to me like the effect of Saenz v Roe is that if we set the minimum wage at $15 in NH and $5 in VT and someone moves from VT to NH they get $15 not $5. I was already assuming that was how it would work. I think people are unwilling enough to move that you can test most things for a few years without worrying too much about arbitrage.", "timestamp": "1410813667"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/688093992002?comment_id=688130913012", "anchor": "fb-688130913012", "service": "fb", "text": "@Ben: \"individuals have ~0 influence on the type of housing coming into the pipeline\"

Barriers to building more housing are a big problem, and they're something governments can get around in ways individuals can't. But the government could also just work to remove the barriers, and let individuals/companies take advantage of the new regulatory environment to actually build the housing.

\"a government hiring ten designers and clone-stamping the result before sale allows much lower cost per unit for something that is nicely appointed\"

People have a wide enough variety of preferences that I wouldn't expect that to give you units people actually liked living in very much.", "timestamp": "1410813861"}, {"author": "Ben", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/688093992002?comment_id=688131247342", "anchor": "fb-688131247342", "service": "fb", "text": "Jeff Kaufman: I suspect when it comes to a $10K/head mincome, lots of people would be willing to move. However, we can just apply science.

I am still not sure why shifting everyone $10K would have the intended effect: we already have people struggling at $15K, so it is not clear to me that the people shifted from $5K to $15K would fare much better.

Finally, I just don't trust your average individual terribly much. The Market is tremendously inefficient, and just handwaving the problem onto individuals tends to ignore the systematic ways things go wrong. At the same time, though, the transition to less-scarcity economics is a personal pet goal: if this can be demonstrated to work, I am willing to throw down backing.", "timestamp": "1410814148"}, {"author": "Marcus", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/111675838261170541573", "anchor": "gp-1410819259822", "service": "gp", "text": "Yes healthcare, modified yes housing (don't just build more, build it intelligently... I'm partial to encouraging high density urban mixed-use rather than low density suburban), yes legalize (but with support for temperance programs, which I understand were actually fairly successful before Prohibition replaced and therefore ruined them), yes reduce imprisonment, yes reduce military, modified yes give people money (I still support progressive tax structures, and I note several challenges that are even larger than the challenges posed by the other ambitious items on this post, like making the minimum income big enough to matter. Also, there are potential interactions with immigration policy. I also think that there is room for combined market and non-market policies to address some market imperfections), probably yes to eliminate minimum wage (presuming minimum income & healthcare), leaning no to tax land value (I haven't really thought this all the way through, but my gut instincts make me somewhat dubious), yes and yes to \"tax bads not goods\", yes to changing school funding structure, yes to opt-out organs, yes to immigration, yes to randomization.\n
\n
\nI'd add to that, as long as we're making a wishlist, multi-member voting districts with ranked preferences, which I think will make our democracy more representative.", "timestamp": 1410819259}, {"author": "Karla", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/688093992002?comment_id=688141416962", "anchor": "fb-688141416962", "service": "fb", "text": "Very interesting discussion. My thoughts about land taxation have already been made (thanks folks!), but I'm curious to hear more about why you would support the flat percentage. It seems to me that the guaranteed minimum income would alleviate the tax burden for the poorest (receiving only that minimum income) but it doesn't account for the differential value of your dollar when you're making 10,001 vs 1,000,001. I assume I'm missing something--would be interested in hearing your thoughts!", "timestamp": "1410820743"}, {"author": "Karla", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/688093992002?comment_id=688141866062", "anchor": "fb-688141866062", "service": "fb", "text": "Also, I get rationale behind minimum income instead of social services (I'm a big fan of guaranteed minimum income), but I have to say: Don't get rid of school lunches! I think the main (liberal) argument against min income is the \"what if people mismanage it and can't get their basic needs met?\" While you can argue that this is paternalistic when it comes to adults, a child should not be punished for their parents' failure to manage their money. School lunches currently are many kids' only hot meal of the day, because it's offered in a venue that is outside the purview of their home situation. Keep school lunches, or offer an alternative to protect kids from the impact of their parents' problems!", "timestamp": "1410821042"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/688093992002?comment_id=688151337082", "anchor": "fb-688151337082", "service": "fb", "text": "@Karla: \"it doesn't account for the differential value of your dollar when you're making 10,001 vs 1,000,001\"

What curve do you think would do this better? Let's say we have 0% tax rate at $10k, 5% at $20k, 10% at $30k, 20% at $50k, 30% at $80k, 45% at $100k, and 60% at $200k and above. This does properly account for the decreasing marginal value of income, but it also means you need to set the top rate much higher.", "timestamp": "1410824335"}, {"author": "Ben", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/688093992002?comment_id=688161571572", "anchor": "fb-688161571572", "service": "fb", "text": "\"...but it also means you need to set the top rate much higher.\"

I am so fine with that.", "timestamp": "1410826799"}, {"author": "Bil", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/688093992002?comment_id=688176302052", "anchor": "fb-688176302052", "service": "fb", "text": "The US Government gave me $50k for free over a 10 year period. The only qualification was that I had to make at least $150k to qualify. Getting an extra $5k/yr when you're already bringing in $150k makes... absolutely no difference in your lifestyle. If we rich people actually paid today's rates, the country would have a massive tax surplus.", "timestamp": "1410832943"}, {"author": "Peter", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/688093992002?comment_id=688220214052", "anchor": "fb-688220214052", "service": "fb", "text": "I'd be interested in seeing how this all balances from a budgetary standpoint.

Other policies I'd suggest include...

(a) different monetary policy aiming more towards full employment than securing against inflation (though employment would matter less with basic income)

(b) open borders

(c) some animal welfare package between removing the worst offending practices of factory farms to phasing out meat production completely.

(d) eliminate farm, coal, and oil Subsidies

(e) a carbon tax

(f) Robin Hood tax (maybe, don't know much about it)

(g) expanding foreign aid and being smarter about it", "timestamp": "1410881168"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/688093992002?comment_id=688220892692", "anchor": "fb-688220892692", "service": "fb", "text": "@Bil: Could you expand on how the government gave you ~$5k/year for being rich?", "timestamp": "1410881641"}, {"author": "Bil", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/688093992002?comment_id=688222988492", "anchor": "fb-688222988492", "service": "fb", "text": "Low income housing incentive: I put in $7k/yr to an LLP which built the units. The IRS gave me a $7k credit at the end of the year. Repeat 5.5 years until I've put in $40k. The credit remains in effect 4.5 more. Net free money: $30k. Sold the unit for about $25k. I did no work, took no risk. The government could have simply built a unit for $40k and sold it.", "timestamp": "1410883558"}, {"author": "Adam", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/688093992002?comment_id=688336630752", "anchor": "fb-688336630752", "service": "fb", "text": "Bil; Surely you took some risk there? If the builders had been inept and the units didn't get finished or were unsound then the LLP would have gone under and taken your money with it right? But you're right, that system seems crazy.", "timestamp": "1410946856"}, {"author": "David Chudzicki", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/106120852580068301475", "anchor": "gp-1411051626816", "service": "gp", "text": "@Jeff Kaufman\n\u00a0-- yeah, those are concerns. I wasn't suggesting all-out futarchy, maybe just limited the way you're proposing limited use of experiments. I'm not sure that explicitly agreeing on values enough to use futarchy is all that much harder than looking at the results of experiments and agreeing on what they mean for policy.", "timestamp": 1411051626}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/688093992002?comment_id=688561360392", "anchor": "fb-688561360392", "service": "fb", "text": "Regarding emergency rooms, expansion of Medicaid makes emergency room use go up, not down:

http://thinkprogress.org/.../01/science.1246183.full_.pdf

Regarding single-payer, there is already Medicare for the population above 65, and it is likewise extraordinarily expensive by world standards. The U.S. public health care system spends similarly to Canada's despite covering only some of the population. Single-payer would have to be combined with massive per patient spending cuts relative to current US practice.", "timestamp": "1411109061"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/688093992002?comment_id=688561425262", "anchor": "fb-688561425262", "service": "fb", "text": "Some tensions here:

-replacing government health care for the poor with cash transfers while instituting universal government health care
-legalizing drugs/jail people less and taxing harmful things are in tension: organized crime does a lot of smuggling to get around taxes on cigarettes and the like, and enforcement of prohibition and high sin taxes face qualitatively similar challenges", "timestamp": "1411109305"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/688093992002?comment_id=688561609892", "anchor": "fb-688561609892", "service": "fb", "text": "\"Keep income tax, maybe raise it, but make it a simple percentage.\"

Having multiple tax brackets for wage income is responsible for almost none of the complexity burden (look to tax expenditures and differential treatment of different types of income).

http://thinkprogress.org/.../we-need-more-tax-brackets.../", "timestamp": "1411109450"}, {"author": "Marcel", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/688093992002?comment_id=688568680722", "anchor": "fb-688568680722", "service": "fb", "text": "Social impact bonds could be a better way to get a lot of these desired outcomes than government-run programs would be.", "timestamp": "1411126503"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1411127998589", "service": "gp", "text": "@David Chudzicki\n\u00a0\"I'm not sure that explicitly agreeing on values enough to use futarchy is all that much harder than looking at the results of experiments and agreeing on what they mean for policy.\"\n
\n
\nIt's much harder, because it's adversarial. \u00a0First you have to state what you consider \"good\", and then people who stand to make a lot of money try and find the easyist way to get what you called good, and often that will mean pulling the two apart.", "timestamp": 1411127998}, {"author": "Alexander", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/688093992002?comment_id=688576305442", "anchor": "fb-688576305442", "service": "fb", "text": "I like some of these ideas a lot! Would you mind answering two questions for me?

1) I'm not sure about the commitment to balanced budgets - this entails that the other sectors of the economy should ALWAYS be in overall balance (http://originofspecious.wordpress.com/.../austrian.../) . What is the point of that?

2) What can we do to make it easier to build more houses? One idea I had was that since, over there in the US, you've got national organisations for providing government-guaranteed credit to home BUYERS (Fannie & Freddie), maybe you should also have national organisations for providing credit to home BUILDERS. Is this the kind of thing you were thinking, or were you thinking of something else?

Thanks!", "timestamp": "1411130553"}, {"author": "Jeffrey", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/104363817858435775076", "anchor": "gp-1411143819469", "service": "gp", "text": "I slightly disagree with many of the items on this list:\n
\n
\nBuild More Housing - yes, except location is important. Existing areas need to be more developed, I'm not excited about contributing to urban sprawl.\n
\n
\nLegalize Drugs: Lets start with legal marijuana and addiction facilities for the rest. I'm willing to accept that some drugs might be better off illegal.\n
\n
\nGive People More Money / Minimum Wage / Reduce Other Taxes - I agree, except the bit about the flat percentage tax. I think there are reasons to tax the ultra-rich over the rich over the upper middle class.\n
\n
\nFund Schools Federally - Or you know, at the state level. The problem is that schools are funded primarily by property tax and aren't funded equally on a per pupil basis. If you want to keep your experimentation and also defuse your risk, a state level is better.\n
\n
\nI would nominate to the list:\n
\n
\nClose the inversion loop-hole and tax capital gains.\n
\n
\nJails should focus less on punishment and more on rehabilitation.\n
\n
\nMore vocational programs available at the high school level.\n
\n
\nReduce or cap the percentage schools spend on sports.\n
\n
\nBetter and more steady funding for scientific research.\n
\n
\nTax carbon or build nuclear reactors and close coal plants.\n
\n
\nSpending on transportation and infrastructure.", "timestamp": 1411143819}, {"author": "Pablo", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/688093992002?comment_id=773788858802", "anchor": "fb-773788858802", "service": "fb", "text": "Eliezer Yudkowsky lists several policies in a recent Scientific American interview:

\"I'd try to do all the things smart economists have been yelling about for a while but that almost no country ever does. Replace investment taxes and income taxes with consumption taxes and land value tax. Replace minimum wages with negative wage taxes. Institute NGDP level targeting regimes at central banks and let the too-big-to-fails go hang. Require loser-pays in patent law and put copyright back to 28 years. Eliminate obstacles to housing construction. Copy and paste from Singapore's healthcare setup. Copy and paste from Estonia's e-government setup. Try to replace committees and elaborate process regulations with specific, individual decision-makers whose decisions would be publicly documented and accountable. Run controlled trials of different government setups and actually pay attention to the results.\"

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/.../ai-visionary.../", "timestamp": "1457100925"}, {"author": "Imuli", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/688093992002?comment_id=788553425492", "anchor": "fb-788553425492", "service": "fb", "text": "Carl, eliminating income tax brackets could shift the responsibility for filing taxes to employers and investment firms (and self-employed).", "timestamp": "1464209252"}, {"author": "Jim", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/688093992002?comment_id=788577996252", "anchor": "fb-788577996252", "service": "fb", "text": "I strongly suspect that replacing most welfare programs with a guaranteed minimum income would significantly reduce the state's public health care costs. I personally know someone who fell into a particularly pernicious poverty trap: their only income was $800/month from SSDI, and (as they understood it, I'm not an expert) both income from work and aid from family would have been deducted from this at a 100% marginal rate. During this time they had a health crisis caused by mold exposure exacerbated by malnutrition (accompanied by significant unintended weight loss), ending in what I'd guess was somewhere from $100k-$1M in medical expenses paid by the state of Massachusetts.", "timestamp": "1464222201"}]}