What’s better than an unconditional Basic Income (BI)? A reduction in rents! Why? Because:
(1) Nobody asks how we’re going to pay lower rents!
(2) By definition, the benefit of lower rents isn’t competed away in higher rents — as a BI would be. (You don’t see this problem with “pilot” basic incomes; but you *will* see it if the BI becomes universal.)
(3) Jobs can’t exist unless (a) the employers can afford business accommodation, and (b) the employees can afford housing within reach of their jobs, on wages that employers can pay. Lower rents therefore create jobs — reducing the need for a BI.
(4) If lower rents don’t serve *all* the purposes of a BI, they reduce the size and cost of the BI needed to serve the remaining purposes.
And how do we reduce rents? Impose rent control? NO!! That makes it less attractive to supply accommodation. But a tax on vacant lots and unoccupied buildings makes it less attractive NOT to supply accommodation! A vacant-property tax of $X/week makes it $X/week more expensive to fail to get a tenant, and thereby REDUCES, by $X/week, the minimum rent that will persuade the owner to accept a tenant. Better still, the economic activity driven by *avoidance* of that tax would broaden the bases of other taxes, allowing their rates to be reduced — offsetting the tax impact of a BI, if you still want one!
