Warning, brain dump incoming...
When consumers do not have adequate money at their disposal to spend, the economy suffers because profit margins are lower. Businesses react with layoffs etc to lower operating costs as an example which further has a negative impact on the economy. We must show businesses how the establishment of UBI benefits them.
When everyone is not paying their fair share in taxes, income equity becomes less possible and social programs are underfunded. Lowering taxes on the wealthy and companies has proven to be ineffective - there is no trickle down effect. Lowering the cost of social programs has proven to be ineffective - more are leaving the workforce and the quality of life suffers for most doing so creating more demand on social programs. We must return to progressive taxation but in a way that provides fair incentives that businesses can support.
When businesses in a free market are allowed to exploit humans for profit, social injustice prevails leading to an unsustainable economy, higher health costs, greater suffering, etc. This is where we are today not just in the US, but in much of the "free" world. We must enforce existing laws and enact new laws to "stop the bleeding" then create a new "treatment" approach - not this constant back and forth of extremes we see powered by today's political organizations manipulating the truth.
We must create a fair market shared economy because a free market economy is harmful to all but the 1%. But we must do this in a way that shifts the center left over time. The scales should always put the needs of the people over the needs to profit. The best way to do this is to create a shared economy but that will not happen without market pressures, activism, and regulatory changes powered by voters supporting the Democratic Party Platform and economic boycotts driven by social, climate, and economic justice warriors. So where do we get the warriors and how do we lift them up?
Generation Z and the upcoming Alpha Generation have the power to do so in sheer potential voter numbers, but may lack adequate education and knowledge of history to get there on their own because Republicans lowered the quality of education while they were in school. Generation X Democrats have the most voter apathy having been taught to believe their votes don't matter and because Republicans lowered the quality of education while they were in school. Generation Y has been taught by forces behind Republicans that Democrats and Republicans are the same - to divide and conquer and because Republicans lowered the quality of education while they were in school. Generation Z showed their strength as social, climate, and economic justice warriors but it's not enough to overcome voter suppression and gerrymandering in all states.
It is however, a great start as they use the digital landscape to overcome educational barriers! Boomers can help Gens XYZ as their education was not yet stunted by Republican impacts on our education system and their experience as activists is valuable - not by holding power but by sharing their knowledge as political champions .
Looking at this from a cause and effect approach here in the US, some ideas come to mind but they require major pragmatic legislation and that requires a sustained Democrat majority to prove the benefits to non-Democrats over time. Being "sneaky" (as noted in the discussion) may be necessary at the start but it fits in with a pragmatic progressive approach - to help opponents see over time the better way which then helps shift the political center left.
Aside from lowering the costs of living regionally by making energy cheaper for example as noted in the discussion, we must frame political change as anti-corruption and cost-lowering approaches to get bipartisan support. This means we identify what we can do short-term to support our long-term goals.
For example, there are many non-profit statuses established by a complex maze in the tax code that has been exploited for years by organizations that are not charitable and are making huge profits. Legislation to eliminate all of these except one status as a non-profit requiring proof of charity and non-profit (rather than only having to prove it via audits) would address this corruption and lower costs at the IRS. Shifting the "charitable" to other changes in the tax code provides greater incentive to be charitable. There should be no limits on charitable contributions and every individual, business, or organization should be eligible for tax deductions only through proof of charity when filing.
This can be tracked in the same way 1099's are done - both donor and recipients file them so the IRS is flagged by the system when one or the other does not report. This also supports efforts to prevent money laundering and funding of criminal activities that happen via corrupt non-profits. But the greater benefits are to those in need of charitable services.
Another example is, if we had legislation that required opt-in not opt-out for all online services, and that required companies to share profits from data it gathers for profit with the individuals that are the source of that data when they opt-in, that is a start towards a shared economy which further lowers the amount needed for UBI. The legislation can be framed in parts - first part as data privacy legislation and the second part as stimulating the economy without issuing economic stimulus payments. Opponents will of course be huge corporations like Google and Facebook currently being sued for data privacy violations, but even our current administration is joining that fight. What needs to happen is legislation to support the administration's actions related to this first part. The second then can be framed to build upon the first part - and could get bipartisan support.
Both of those examples target the needs of the people over the needs of businesses by providing greater income and social services without increasing taxes and by lowering government costs. Through these two examples, businesses and individuals get incentives to be more charitable which lowers their tax burden to offset progressive taxation efforts which is ongoing but not bipartisan. So some of that can be reframed as part three to ensure social programs remain funded and grow where needed without raising taxes on those who need social services.
This in turn also supports economic boycotts which are effective by creating a public source of information about businesses who have higher charitable contributions than others aka socially and environmentally responsible companies. A good example is the current TW debacle. Companies who pulled advertising or reduced budgets for advertising on TW are for the most part doing so out of economic boycott fears.
Economic boycotts also support unionizing efforts which is a good thing. I am pro-union and know that unionization can benefit small businesses in managing costs. But I also know there are some corrupt unions too. A bipartisan approach would be a balanced one where new laws provide greater transparency and oversight of unions to address corruption but also provide tax incentives for companies that allow unions. Inside that legislation would be language nullifying "right to work" state laws as unconstitutional in that they violate equal rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for individuals and businesses. This can be framed as lowering the costs of administration by the Department of Labor and the courts dealing with legal disparities among the states.
As for progressive healthcare approaches, what gets bipartisan support is evidence-based multi-payer universal healthcare. Establish non-profit government-funded insurance that private markets have to compete with rather than single-payer. We know how to create self-sustaining agencies that drive the economy - i.e. Export Import Bank. Health insurance should include mental, vision, and dental - not separate plans. In multi-payer, everyone is eligible for healthcare insurance, can choose who they want that insurance from, and the costs are driven by fair market demand. Anything driven by market demands gets bipartisan support.
The private sector may also be impacted by economic boycotts depending upon how they run their businesses and what they offer or don't offer to whom. The same can be done with other social programs or those can be absorbed to lower administrative costs. If we have multi-payer universal healthcare, we don't need special programs for children, seniors, or low income recipients at federal or state levels. We do still need funding available to support people in need due to disasters, wars, etc and legislation to prevent politicians from robbing these funds.
All of these examples not only lower the UBI threshold but lowers costs freeing up tax-payer funds for programs like UBI which in turn can eliminate costs associated with many current social programs. The cost of living varies across the country so UBI has to vary as well. After establishing the regional UBI thresholds, while we work on lowering the threshold further, we also must address technology advances that may lead to fewer jobs available. This is where another idea comes to mind.
Legislation to provide funding for UBI from companies who eliminate jobs via technology advances whether AI software or robotic hardware. The government's role is administrative redistributing these funds gathered by increased taxes on those companies. Amount of taxation has to be worked out so that companies do not lose money of course. In turn, consumers inject more money into the economy which businesses need to sustain jobs. UBI benefits everyone.
Over time, bipartisan support may not be needed as Generation Alpha will have joined the voter base championed by Gen Z who are supported by Gen X and Y as Boomers exit the workforce and political ranks. But a new justice era will have begun and a sustainable shared economy will have been established.
Economic boycotts can lead to political change and economic change where a fair market lifts all boats. The role of the federal government is to address the people's needs in terms of their welfare and their safety. That includes economic stability, enforcing the Constitution for citizens in all states, and providing for their defense. Activism is not simply signing petitions online, using social media as an outlet for outrage, or marching in the streets. Productive activism requires pragmatic progressive action.
Shelenn Ayres
NovaSynchron