Hacker News Reader

Comment by mjburgess | Hacker News Reader

1000 USD / mo / pp for the US is 12k/yr * 300m

ie., c. 4 Trillion USD / yr or c. 20% of GDP (20 T)

The total amount taxed in the US is already at that level (4T).

For the carbon tax to raise 20% of GDP, it would need to raise as much as all present taxes do (income, sales, etc.). Levying that much on consumption (ie., obtaining the present total amount of tax merely from products people buy) would raise prices catastrophically.

View on HN

Only about 30-40 million people would likely net extra income with a UBI. i.e. If you increase my income taxes by $1000 but then give me a $1000 UBI check, its a wash. For some reason folks struggle to wrap their head around that part. Which is why I think a negative income tax is better mechanism.

Wouldn't negative tax mean that social programs would still be needed almost in the current scale to account for people with no income?

Wait, so my taxes would only double? Not being sarcastic at all: this makes UBI sound possible even without a carbon tax. The top bracket would still be lower than what it was in 1960.

Not quite. The tax take would double from a consumption tax.

Total retail sales (https://www.statista.com/statistics/443495/total-us-retail-s...) is c. 6T.

Assuming that most of the 4T comes from taxing the activity represented by retail sales (a very safe bet), you need to get most of 4T from 6T. Ie., you're basically doubling the prices of retail goods -- including food.

To extend on that, the US releases about 5.1 billion tons of CO2 in a year. Each gallon of gasoline release roughly 20 pounds of CO2. That means that 1 gallon of gas would be taxed at $7.84 if we pollute at our current rates.

Just to calibrate that with some prices elsewhere:

1 US gallon = 3.8 litres

$7.84 per gallon = $2.06/€1.75 per litre

Russia €0.55/$0.65 per litre

China €0.80/$0.94

Spain €1.66/$1.95

Germany €1.29/$1.51

UK €1.21/$1.42

Netherlands €1.67/$1.96

Tbh, I would be very much in favor of this. I know it's not a popular opinion, but things that pollute this much should not be the easiest/cheapest solution.

Don’t forget that $1T of that total $4T is just spent on social security — this could potentially replace social security, so that number could go towards UBI instead

I’m not sold on UBI but it does sound possible

It means more than doubling the federal budget, which already exceeds tax revenue considerably. UBI of $1000/mo might be doable in Zimbabwe as long as you don’t care what 1000 Zimbabwe dollars actually buys you....

The price increases would be offset by the UBI. It's zero sum at an aggregate level.

Back of the napkin calculation is not a source. Economy is a bit more complex.

edit: Imagine being downvoted for asking for a legitimate source on HN. Because rejecting UBI by making a simple multiplication is a sufficient explanation instead of researching all the secondary effects that a UBI would bring. Yeah, we've solved it there, I guess! Economists should go find some real jobs /s

Reply on news.ycombinator.com