The problem with taxing the wealthy, is that they generally have an outsized share of the political power. I think that a better solution, from a political and psychological standpoint, would involve a voluntary system. If just rent could be covered, this would be the equivalent of $12k per year in many parts of the US:
http://www.elledecor.com/life-culture/news/a7635/german-vill...
That German gated community you linked has housing that is owned by a trust. I don't think you can ask residents of the U.S. to voluntarily hand over all their housing property to a trust, or require them to be Catholic to reside in it.
However, I think it could be possible to have many, many such trusts which cater to specific interest groups. How about communities which cater to different kinds of artists, musicians, writers, philosophers, etc...? If something like 60% of the US population could be covered this way, it would combine many of the best aspects of universal coverage with the benefits of meritocracy and the advantages of a voluntary basis.
Sure. An artist commune shouldn't be letting you in unless you actually have some skill and artistic talent.
Meritocracies reward meritorious individuals, which is difficult to do when forcing everyone to live in communal housing. This isn't very well thought out.
You didn't try and prove the null hypothesis very hard, did you? There already exist intentional communities and artist colonies, where some degree of skill (merit) is a requirement. This is analogous to the German trust cited above, except the Catholicism requirement is replaced by some sort of merit-based interest.
By voluntary system you mean the wealthy voluntarily turning over the wealth that they won't let us tax them for? It doesn't make sense.
Many other cultures have a gift economy, where the powerful voluntarily redistribute their wealth in exchange for status. Culture is very powerful, often overpowering pure economics. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have already pledged huge fractions of their wealth towards the common good. On the other hand, the historical record on politically forcing the wealthy to hand over their wealth also supports the notion of voluntarism. It's the society and culture which are the overarching influences. If we changed the culture such that trusts supporting intentional communities were the way the wealthy could have a meaningful impact and legacy, then we could conceivably house over half of the US in virtually free housing.
Arguably, living, thriving creative communities would be far more meaningful than plaques in a museum, park benches, and buildings on a college campus. (Colleges are over-funded and in a bubble as it is.)
We used to exist in a culture where women had no options outside of the home and black people were slaves.
Hand waving about voluntarism and a culture shift isn't going to fix anything. Tax the shit out of the rich and make them pay for it.
In order to tax the rich heavily, you still need a culture shift here in the US. Wherever such taxation works, there is already a thread of communal culture. In order to achieve the same in the US, you need a cultural shift, and not setting up to do that work and simply saying "tax the shit out of the rich" is the hand waving. You're using a slogan that exploits resentment, not setting up for real change.
No, to tax rich people you have to seize the damn money.
People who fund raise for non-profits convince the wealthy to part with their wealth all the time. If we changed society to make this the way to have a legacy as a rich person, then it would happen. Cultures around the world have convinced their wealthy and powerful to do far wackier things than endow an intentional community.
History shows us that the crazy thing to do is to try and force very smart people with lots of resources and power to do something they find distasteful. The same thing to do is to change how people think, feel, and behave, using historical models as precedents.
Schemes to tax the rich and powerful only succeed with the participation of the rich and powerful. That is what you are also saying, but your view is distorted because you are othering "the rich."
Now of course they do everything they can to avoid taxes, but very few evade them. I'm not so wealthy, but if I can legally avoid paying a tax, I will. That's more available for my retirement, charitable causes, and my family. I don't expect more from the wealthy than I do of myself.
> I don't expect more from the wealthy than I do of myself.
When you're not wealthy, you have strong needs for that extra money. So I definitely do expect more from the wealthy, in terms of dollar amount. In terms of impact on their life I'm asking for very little.
To force them, out of resentment, as if they are immoral villains or monsters. Do you take well to being treated as an immoral villain?
I wouldn't hold my breath.
This is exactly how successful museums operate. What would be so outlandish about changing the culture, such that intentional community trusts become the prominent way of showing a legacy? Hell, we already are basically doing this for wildlife. Why not do this for human beings?
Even if you did manage to tax all the wealth without destroying it, it'd only provide 10 or 20 years of basic income. Which is a lot, but it is hardly enough to make or break a BI as long term policy.
I think I'd be alright with UBI not being a long term policy if it meant radical wealth redistribution.
