UBIPA.org   

UBIPA hereby puts forward one proposal for a partial Universal Basic Income (UBI) attached to an Environmental Tax. This could prove a popular way forward since over 50% of the population now support a UBI and over 70% of the population now support serious action on climate change.

While other forms of environmental tax could be included, the essence would be tax on CO2 emissions, starting at $40/ton, with all revenues being distributed back to the population as a small UBI, distributed on a per person basis as opposed to per household. This would negate the regressive nature of a carbon tax as some 70% of the population could be better off.

This would more than pay for a Livable Income Guarantee, as proposed by John Quiggin et al. Alternatively, if applied as a UBI style payment, this would create only a small payment per person, which could be provided tax-free universally to everyone. However, we need more drastic climate action than this and hence we could increase the carbon rate by $20 each year. With every increase, the UBI style payment would also increase, ensuring that that the public is compensated.

Using simple rounded figures, Australia emits over 500 million tonnes of CO2 per year. Using a carbon tax of $40/ton, this leads to a revenue of $20 billion. Given an adult population of about 20 million, this leads to about $1000pa per person, around $40 per fortnight.

The current fuel tax is 42.7c per litre (excluding heavy vehicles). This equates to a carbon tax of around $170/tonne. With a carbon tax of $170, a UBI, for adults only, of around $212 per fortnight could be paid. We could start with $40/tonne in 2011-12 rising $20 a year to $200/tonne in 2030 and a UBI of $250/fortnight. 

Hopefully, given such action, Australia would be welcome back into international negotiations on what rate is required. Calculating more precise figures than given here may not prove very useful as what happens will all depend, on population growth, economic growth given covid and developments in technology, but the principal effect is clear.

Two key questions arise. Firstly, the tax is meant to dissuade the emission of CO2. If it is successful as hoped, the revenues would decline over time and the UBI would have to be reduced or paid from other sources. Secondly, do current fuel taxes remain or are they reduced so as not to duplicate the tax collected as a carbon tax. Eventually, when carbon taxes rise to $170/kg, then fuel taxes could possibly be removed. It could however possibly be argued that fuel tax is a tax on pollution. Also it can be seen as a user-pays tax to pay for the roads. Hence fuel tax should possibly remain.

As the carbon tax works through the economy and is incorporated into prices, the value of this extra basic income will be reduced. It would be interesting to see research on the average carbon emissions in the consumption bundles at different income levels. While such a UBI would not be something for nothing, it would create pressure for people to consume products embodying less carbon emissions, and thus hopefully alleviate climate change.

Comments or any corrections would be very welcome.