Comments on: Financing basic income

By: David Sucher

David Sucher — Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:00:13 +0000

Chris. I guess I am not clear on why “[a] central issue in this area is how to finance such proposals,” It seems as if there are two unrelated and very interesting issues: 1. Should we have “baby bonds?” (We in the USA have periodically had proposals for a “Guaranteed Annual Income” which sound very similar as a way of enabling “stake-holding.”) 2. Should we explicitly “sell” zoning entitelemnts”? I think I understand the land-use concept Brittain was advancing and I ‘m merely saying that while it sounds odd, it merely turns the old saw about “buying zoning rights” on its head and says “Yes, that’s what we are doling and we are doing it out front.” I think the comment above about governments of the future appropriating Baby Bond money for other uses neatly sums up the real world separation of the issues.

By: derrida derider

derrida derider — Fri, 25 Jul 2003 08:54:13 +0000

I’ve always thought proponents of baby bonds just haven’t thought the idea through: 1) If you want people to get a grant at 18, why not just run a budget surplus to put a future government in a position to do it directly? 2) If you did do a baby bond, I’d bet pounds to peanuts that some cash-strapped future government will just appropriate it by imposing uni fees or other imposts that they would not otherwise have been able to. 3) Are you going to let those who’ve improvidently blown their money in a drunken 18th birthday party starve when they later become unemployed or disabled? If so you’re going to have to tolerate more, not less, indigents. If not, where’s the incentive for prudence beyond what already exists?

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Fri, 25 Jul 2003 07:29:07 +0000

David, that sort of payment, referred to in my remarks as “planning gain” is pretty commonplace with big developements in the UK and perfectly legal. Brittan is suggesting replacing it with an auction system so as to derive a fund of assets for redistribution.

By: David Sucher

David Sucher — Thu, 24 Jul 2003 23:56:32 +0000

Paying for specific planning entitlements is really not such an odd idea, and that’s putting aside the context of illegal payments and corruption—- a cliche of the land use process. For one thing, developers are in fact already doing so in the form of zoning and then “exactions.” You want to build a 5-story building next to a 2-story house (there are many examples of abrupt zone edges)—OK. But we want you to step back the 4th & 5th stories in ziggurat fashion. And maybe you also ought to be building a new traffic light…etc etc Moreover, there is a degree of rough justice: you cause an impact, you pay. It’s also perfectly legal and not uncommon for a developer to sign a no-litigation agreement with angry neighbors. Making “Payment for Permit” a more explict and aboveboard process is intriguing, if unlikely to happen—- unless Judge Posner (of “Economics of Law” fame) becomes national land use czar.

By: dsquared

dsquared — Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:29:01 +0000

I always find baby bonds a fascinating subject; they seem so obviously sensible that I’m sure there’s a catch.