senseless

I'd like to see them expose the rat to a fruit or vegetable that's had a certain amount of the pesticide sprayed on it. And then expose another rat to a fruit or vegetable that's had the pesticide sprayed on it but was then washed with water in the sink before eating. I wonder if the results would be very different. And I really hope so since that's how I prepare all my produce.

You're right, but the dividend portion of the plan linked in the top parent is meant to address the consumer's added cost. Poorer people would see higher benefit since they spend the least on carbon products but the revenue is returned equally.

Also see this paper, which is actually arguing for a slightly different system called cap-and-dividend but with the same outcome in mind: http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/working_papers/worki...

A plan such as tax-and-dividend or cap-and-dividend also breaches the political divide and shows that both sides can get what they want in a single sensible system. Yes, certain lawmakers will still spitefully resist as they always do.

I think you're mistaking SF and Hong Kong for being more similar than they are.

Hong Kong has about 7.2 million people in about 107 mi² of developable land[0]. In comparison, San Francisco has about 840,000 people in 47 mi² of land.

Additionally, San Francisco is just one piece of its urban area. There is a large amount of developed land outside of it that people can live in who can't afford the city proper. Hong Kong is much more self-contained, geographically and politically.

Furthermore, there is a vast amount of research showing that zoning laws hold tremendous (and quite possibly primary) impact over prices. To start, you might be interested in the book Zoning Rules! by William A. Fischel.

Excuse me for saying so, I can't help but think you made this comment with virtually no knowledge around zoning and urban development in general, and I don't want people to be misled.

[0] http://www.pland.gov.hk/pland_en/info_serv/statistic/landu.h...

Just the same, there are city neighborhoods where everyone down the block knows one another and whose families spend time together often, and suburban neighborhoods falling into crime and dysfunction where few community bonds exist.

Neither of these is proof that one is inherently better than the other, just that there are many dependent factors which can change the fabric of a neighborhood in any setting. That's the point of the entire field of urban studies existing; to understand what makes these types of places happen. As you would expect, many of the communities that we have in reality don't implement the best solutions that have been discovered due to local resistance, funding issues, misguided political mandates, etc.

No, it does not assume a fixed supply of housing. The law of rent revolves around the margin of productivity and already takes into account what you're trying to say.

The wages extractable from the least valuable land would rise by the same amount as anywhere else since basic income would affect everyone's incomes equally. Thus, there would be an excess over the basic level of sustenance and according to this law that excess MUST be swallowed up by rent. The status quo would resume for normal wage-earners, while land-owners would benefit even more than they already do, raising rates of inequality further.

Exactly, Henry George is the most prominent theorist who pushed those ideas, and many more have used or expanded on them since.

Good to see steps like this being made!

As a slight aside, there are strong proponents who argue, based on Ricardo's law of rent [0], that any excess income above the basic subsistence level will inevitably be swallowed up by landlords in the form of rents.

I'd be very interested to hear from the folks involved in this study if they have an opinion on such an assertion, and if you have any ideas on addressing that effect when it comes to instituting a basic income. Since, if you agreed with those arguments, it seems that a BI's long-term impact on disposable incomes would trend towards 0.

I am still studying the topic, but find the arguments compelling that say a basic income would need to also be paired with something along the lines of either a land-value tax or a community land contribution [1] (which, as the argument is often used, would have a dual bonus by obviating the need for property and income taxes) in order to have meaningful effect.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_rent

[1] https://www.unitism.com/land/en/9-keep-what-you-earn-pay-for...