183
How Do We Pay for Universal Basic Income? Tax Stock the Way Companies Already Issue It.
(scottsantens.substack.com)
this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2026
183 points (95.5% liked)
Pragmatic Leftist Theory
1142 readers
3 users here now
The neolibs are too far right. The tankies are doing whatever that is. Where's the space for the people who want fully-automated-luxury-gay-space-communism, but realize that it's gonna take a while and there are lots of steps between now and then? Here. This is that space.
Here, people should endeavor to discuss and devise practical, actionable leftist action. Vote lesser evil while you build grassroots coalitions. Unionize your workplace. Participate in SRAs. Build cohesion your local community. Educate the proletariat.
This is a place for practical people to develop practical plans to implement stable, incremental improvement.
If you're dead-set on drumming up all 18,453 True Leftists® into spontaneous Revolution, go somewhere else. The grown ups are talking.
Rules:
-1. Don't be a dick. Racism, sexism, other assorted bigotries, you know the drill. At least try to default to mutually respectful discussion. We're all on the same side here, unless you aren't, in which case kindly leave.
-2. Don't be a tankie. Yes I'm sure you have an extensive knowledge of century-old theory. There's been a century of history since then. Things didn't shake out as expected, maybe consider the possibility that a different angle of attack might be more effective in light of new data.
-3. Be practical. No one on the left benefits from counterproductive actions. This is a space informed by, not enslaved to, ideology. Promoting actions that are fundamentally untenable in the system in question, because they fulfill a sense of ideological purity, is a bad look. Don't do that.
founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Anything less than effective isn't worth doing.
There's a difference between perfect and effective. Less than perfectly effective is still effective. Less than perfectly effective, when perfect is presently unobtainable, is what this community is about. This is less than perfectly effective.
So long as the players can keep playing, changing the rules of the game isn't an effective solution.
It's not perfectly effective. It accomplishes something.
Some of us don't want to live our lives on standby until the rules of the game change. Sure, we should change them, but that's a multi-generational task.
It isn't effective enough to be worth doing. I'm not chasing perfection, as you keep insisting, just recognizing history.
When has this kind of direct taxation through stock dilution been tried historically? I don't see any history to recognize here. The article explains how it couldn't be dodged like other taxes, so historical wealth taxation isn't relevant.
When has seizing assets ever been tried? Constantly.
You really should read the article. This isn't that.
I did read it, did you? It takes 1.5% of all companies in the form of stock or ownership, that are big enough, and gives it the citizenry every year. Seizes assets and give it to citizens. Then it gets sold to....whoever the fund manager decides, and it is all easily corruptible and that is exactly what would happen if it ever managed to pass, which it won't.
No, it gets sold gradually onto the open market.
You have too much faith the integrity of this system can be maintained.
I'm just open to novel mechanisms.
Sure.