The full text has a total of 2886 characters, and it takes about 6 minutes to read. Through a series of introductions, I will explain in detail the historical background and practical significance of each word in the question, give the author's own thinking, and explain in detail why "paying money to all people" cannot be implemented in China during the epidemic. This is the second issue of this series. In this issue, we will understand the profound connotation behind "distributing money" and get into the key issue of "where does the money come from".
Previous article:
Every welfare system you enjoy can actually be purchased with cash, so why don’t we just send money directly? The traditional Bismarck-style social welfare system usually does not have the type of "unconditional one-time or uninterrupted direct cash payment to beneficiaries". The well-known concept of allowances and subsidies belongs to employee benefits rather than social benefits. The main manifestations of the Bismarck-style social welfare system include but are not limited to medical reimbursement, rent tax rebates, compulsory education, etc. The common feature of this type of welfare system is that the form of welfare received by beneficiaries is either not in cash or has many additional conditions. As far as the society is concerned, this has led to the fact that social welfare covers a lot of people in name, but in fact not all social members enjoy the same social welfare resources; The social resource input that he needs, but he cannot get the social resource support that he urgently needs because he does not meet the conditions. Let me give some simple and common examples: a healthy employee enjoying high reimbursement medical insurance is troubled by housing loans due to economic shocks; The employee cannot enjoy the rent tax rebate because his household registration is located in the local area, but he has to pay for a long commute time and high commuting costs due to the relatively insufficient coverage of local transportation facilities; talented child stars have to choose because they have to complete compulsory education on time After giving up his acting career, his popularity plummeted due to his lack of presence for a long time after his comeback. As a decision-maker, when we don’t know whether public schools or public nursing homes are more needed in society, why don’t we ask cash’s own thoughts? Obviously, in contrast, giving beneficiaries unconditional one-time or continuous cash in a certain period is not only a benefit for beneficiaries, but also a space for beneficiaries to choose: employees who are healthy but affected by the economic environment can Instead of receiving cash benefits to see a doctor, pay off the mortgage; employees who suffer from commuting can use cash benefits to subsidize their commuting expenses or simply rent a place near their workplace; Buy educational products that are beneficial to their own business development in their spare time, and postpone the specific time point for completing education in the state of part-time work and part-study. Every beneficiary can get the maximum benefit from the welfare in a timely and full manner, which is the greatest value of the concept of "distributing money". In fact, this also reflects the core reason why the Bismarck-style social welfare system seems to be less burdensome for employees and employers and more sustainable for the government than the specific guarantees it provides— The average wealth obtained by beneficiaries is insignificant compared with the beneficiaries' perception of the protection effect. Taking medical insurance as an example, the beneficiary feels that "with a small continuous investment, he can almost always maintain health or recover health", otherwise there will be "personal financial collapse caused by major health risks". Since the latter risk will be psychologically magnified by the beneficiary due to its serious and irreversible characteristics, the benefit of the former will also be magnified, so the corresponding insurance cost will also be reduced psychologically. In fact, in terms of probability, since the probability of this risk is very small, almost no one can fully enjoy the medical security under the Bismarck-style social security system that matches the price they pay. Moreover, benefits such as free education are actually profitable and sustainable welfare projects, because talents belong to the whole societywill have inexhaustible wealth. Where does the money come from? Will it be ruined? Unconditionally give each citizen exactly the same amount of cash at one time or in a certain period of time. This is the concept of "universal distribution of money" or UBI, an innovative social welfare system. The concept remains controversial to this day, but its advocates have apparently fought back some controversies with experiments and offered apparently workable solutions to others. First of all, the advocates were the first to respond to the bizarre argument that "everything is equal to no money". As a social welfare system, its advocates first emphasized that UBI first has an obvious positive redistribution effect of robbing the rich and helping the poor, which is obviously conducive to promoting social equity. Traditional UBI advocates like to use a simple economic model and elementary mathematical calculation methods to explain this point, but in fact we should use a simpler understanding method to explain the redistribution effect of UBI: We all know that poll tax It is a typical regressive tax, which has the effect of robbing the poor and helping the rich, and is a poor way to redistribute wealth. UBI is actually a poll tax with a negative tax amount, which can be regarded as a kind of progressive tax The concept of equivalence has the effect of robbing the rich and helping the poor, so it is a better way to redistribute wealth. Medieval English people protesting the poll tax. The poll tax is a drop in the bucket for the rich and ruins the property for the poor, but everyone is equal in value. Secondly, the second point that skeptics often attack UBI is its required funding source. In this regard, although advocates all believe that there is a solution to this problem, they give different answers. The answers given by the advocates are roughly divided into two groups, the group that pays according to its income and the group that uses MMT. The common starting point of dispatching according to one's income is that the national financial department should start from the traditional economic theory and pursue the fiscal goal of eliminating the deficit, that is, formulate welfare expenditure plans according to the revenue capacity of the financial department. According to the difference in emphasizing the increase of revenue or the reduction of expenditure by the financial department, the "pay according to one's income" group can be further divided into two groups, namely the group of increasing income and the group of throttling. The principle of the country’s financial management of money is similar to that of your hostess: most people avoid living in debt, but a few people can owe money on their own merits. Fancy taxation, but refuses to extort money The open source school believes that if the finance wants to distribute money, it must first have money in hand, such as collecting taxes. It's just that compared with the existing tax types, the open source school has made some innovative explanations and developments. The traditional income tax and excise tax first. The open source school believes that as long as regressive tax rates are not adopted (that is, people with high income and consumption pay less tax, and people with low income and consumption pay more tax), even if only a fixed tax rate is adopted, it should be determined on the premise of implementing UBI , try to increase the tax rates of these two taxes to a level that matches the amount issued by UBI. Although this gives people the illusion of "giving money to the whole people, but it is returned by the consumption tax", the bottom people are still the beneficiaries. For example: if the consumption tax rate is a fixed tax rate of 10%, and the UBI distribution amount is 4,000 yuan per year, then people whose annual consumption amount is less than 40,000 yuan will benefit from UBI, because they pay less tax than UBI, and the poorer they are , the lower the spending power, the more benefit from UBI. The same is true for income tax. Think about it, how many people in our country spend no more than 3,000 yuan per month? Japan's consumption tax is the easiest to calculate: 10% of all prices is the amount of consumption tax that needs to be paid. "Tax removal" in Japanese means "tax-exclusive price" and then the innovative digital tax and robot tax. The two types of taxes are difficult to understand literally, so I will explain them in the easiest way to understand. first talk about digital tax. Digital tax is a major category of taxes, and the most worthwhile sub-tax is digital service tax . Since the third industrial revolution, the word "swift" is no longer enough to describe the development speed of the Internet industry. As a winner in this era, the Internet industry is actually making money by taking advantage of the value of all citizens. As a netizen, every search, every order, every short video you watch and every post you publishComments are all part of the big data given to Internet companies for nothing, and Internet companies do not need to pay taxes for making money with these big data. Obviously, big data is the digital wealth jointly created by all citizens in the whole society. The society has sufficient reasons to obtain corresponding rewards from the subjects who use the big data wealth. The income obtained from some digital services is a new tax that is levied. Currently, the European Union and the American Yang Anze are pushing for the implementation of the digital service tax. The specific implementation plan is likely to directly levy 10% of the profits of companies (mainly large Internet companies) that use these big data. You and I co-created the big data that belongs to the society today, and is being “whored” by technology winners. Then talk about the robot tax, which is not so easy to understand in comparison. Before talking about the robot tax, let's talk about a strange story that happened during the British Industrial Revolution period. Next issue preview: There is a kind of thought called "Luddism", and people with this kind of thought are called "Luddites", but unfortunately, even Bill Gates is worn Putting on this derogatory hat... More previous interesting articles Return to the top and click on my avatar to see ↑ The lower right corner likes, collects and forwards, please triple support → Your browsing and support It is the biggest motivation for me to share knowledge and opinions comes from a young man who knows a little about astronomy, geography, mathematics and economics electrical engineer uses engineering thinking to understand the world 
