When I was a teenager I was encouraged to participate in the As Prime Minister essay contest. (Since turned into a TV show, Canada’s Next Great Prime Minister.)
I didn’t participate because I was lazy. But it’s a good thing I didn’t participate because I was a fascist and I wanted to draft the homeless. (Seriously.)
Since then I’ve often mused about what I would do if I could convince some party to put me in charge and our party could somehow win a majority.
(Both things are so unlikely as to be beyond the realm of possibility: I am not charismatic enough, nor amoral enough, to run for office. And I could never convince someone charismatic enough that they should implement my policy ideas.)
But the internet lets me tell you what I think. Given my disappointment with the government’s response to the economic consequences of the pandemic, and some other things I have a bugbear about, I’ve decided to publish what I would do:
Universal Basic Income (UBI)
I have already written about this. (And written every MP and Senator in Canada.)
UBI solves many of the problems of the modern welfare state: when administration and enforcement are mostly eliminated, the costs of the programs basically disappear.
Moreover, the emotional and psychological problems of welfare disappear when everyone gets the money. UBI tests have been uniformly positive, with marked increases in emotional well-being.
Click the above link to see a more detailed argument.
I know of three objections:
- People must deserve welfare
- People on UBI will spend their money on bad things
- UBI will cause inflation.
The first two are moral judgments. The first one is absurd on its face and a relic of monotheistic moralistic thinking that belongs in another time. We shouldn’t let our stupid beliefs get in the way of helping people.
The second objection is only valid if that’s what happens when we switch to UBI. There have been a number of UBI or similar experiments and, to the best of my knowledge, none have increased alcoholism or drug addiction. However, if a significant increase in drug/alcohol abuse occurs, or everyone just gambles it away, we can end UBI. (I am very skeptical that this will happen, but I cannot predict the future.)
The last objection to UBI – that it will cause inflation so bad that it will harm the economy – is the only criticism I am aware of that is an actual legitimate criticism. I am not an economist so all I can say is that UBI does not introduce more money into the economy, it just redistributes it differently than before. Why would this cause more inflation than the welfare state?
(I might actually go further and start with universal basic housing, though UBI presumably solves this problem. I think I’d much rather the government be in the business of redistributing wealth through payments than the government being the biggest landlord in the country.)
Simpler Progressive Income Taxation
Few if any economists like tax breaks. All tax breaks do, from a fiscal perspective, is make it more expensive to administer the taxation system. All tax credits really are are gifts to bases, they don’t really do much more than make a few voters happy.
Progressive taxation is a necessary requirement of any society that aspires to any degree of fairness. But tax credits make the system more expensive by increasing administration.
So I think we just have 5-10 tax brackets, including at least one bracket with a ridiculously high rate for those we define as “super rich”, making many multiples of what those in the lowest brackets make. (This should not be controversial but, for some reason, it is.)
And we need to create a penalty for governments who want to introduce tax breaks to discourage the practice.
(One proposal is to remove the ability to change the tax system from the politicians and give it to a central banker type figure. If there is a “Revenue Czar” who is appointed for 10 year-terms, for example, tax breaks are a lot less likely to appear.)
Progressive Land Rent Taxation
Income inequality is caused as much by (land) rent as it is caused by capital gains and excessive C-suite salaries. Arguably, it’s actually rental income that is the biggest driver of income inequality.
Economists from across the political spectrum have long viewed rental income as taxable because, at bottom, it is unproductive income.
Taxing rent can be a bit complicated: do you tax just the land or do you tax what people have built on the land? (There are many other issues.)
But I think the idea must be pursued. There are too many people on the planet and those who have way more land than others often have it because they lucked into inheriting it. And many of them get and stay rich off of that luck. That doesn’t make any sense.
Once we figure out how to tax rent we could make the tax progressive by taxing either by number of dwellings or total profits or some kind of mix of the two. The goal would be to make living off of the housing needs of others something you don’t want to get into.
[I had another idea about rent and landlords the other day but it’s not coming to me now. What the hell was it?]
There are certain items that nobody needs. Rich people can buy these items if they want, but they should also have to pay a tax for the pleasure of buying stupid shit that nobody else in the country can afford. Society should profit at least a little bit off their largess.
I’d rather there be an actual wealth tax, as income tax regimes don’t usually capture wealth. But there are so many ways to hide wealth and avoid wealth taxes that a luxury tax is probably going to be more effective. “What’s another $10,000 on this million dollar purchase, anyway?”
Free Adult Education
In addition to child education we should offer more free adult education – funding to provinces to provide such – in areas what are socially beneficial such as
- critical thinking (including how to argue)
- basic science literacy
- cognitive biases
- basics of advertising/marketing
- basic probability
Decriminalization of Drug Use
Drug use is not a crime issue, it’s a public health issue. It should be treated as such. Nobody should go to jail for possession of any substance for personal use.
Now, that being said, humans have created some really terrible substances that addict us in ways that are really mendacious. The unregulated manufacture of those substances is a problem as is the unregulated distribution of of those substances.
It’s pretty clear the drug problem cannot be solved by just trying to eliminate supply. But a public health approach to the demand-side of the problem is necessary before any successful steps can be taken on the supply-side.
Legalization of Prostitution
It’s the oldest profession for a reason. Criminalizing prostitution is dumb on many levels, and is just a moral crusade pretending to be something more.
Prostitutes should not go to jail. Moreover, they should have the same kinds of labour protections as other professionals.
Johns should not go to jail either, unless they commit actual crimes.
The only people who should go to jail are the Pimps.
National Detective School
Mandatory for the RCMP with incentives to regional and municipal police departments for attendance and certification. This school would teach:
- forensic science
- cognitive biases
Federal Incentives to Improve Education
The federal government should financially incentivize the provinces to improve childhood education. For example, if a province doesn’t want to teach contemporary Sex Ed, they don’t get this money.
Utilitarian Approach to White Collar Crime
I am not a utilitarian and I have huge issues with utilitarianism. But it’s time to treat white collar crime in a utilitarian manner.
White collar crime has a way bigger societal cost than “regular” crime.
But, as a society, we are way more mad about some murder or assault than we get about some company stealing millions.
We need to change this by building a progressive punishment system into the law, where the greater the (proven) effects of the crime, the greater the punishment and/or restitution.
That is, pension robbers need to be punished more harshly than burglars.
Celebrity Political Endorsements Must Be Qualified
Okay, I understand I couldn’t actually do this, so call it an “As Dictator” promise instead:
If a celebrity wants to wade into politics and endorse a politician during official campaign season, whether in an interview or in a paid advertisement, the celebrity must answer a quiz on the issues of the campaign. And this quiz should be published with the endorsement, i.e. next to the endorsement if it’s print/text and put in front of the audio or visual interview/endorsement.
Unfortunately, we citizens are stupid, and we need to be told that our celebrities do not know anything when it comes to public policy.
Tweets Cannot be Reported As News
Okay, one other “As Dictator…” policy: tweets are not news and cannot be reported as such. News organizations running stories based solely on Twitter content will be fined with those fines going to a fund which supports the aforementioned Adult Education programs.