I am afraid I'm more of a paternalistic rice and beans state capitalist than a libertarian socialist or a champagne socialist - the latter of which is the best type of socialist to be if you're lucky. I am afraid that we have price inflation to worry about, which is a matter of demand, and not just long term inflation, which is a matter of money supply. Once we implement ubi, I'm afraid prices are going to shoot up just because sellers know that everyone has money to spend. Taxing rich people to put downward pressure on the money supply might not be successful at controlling inflation when the prices are related to demand. Of course, a lot of the noise could be political - people whose comfort depends on others being enthusiastic about putting their labor on the market have an interest in us not wanting everyone to be guaranteed some spending money. But I'm also confident that our savviness about the self interest of rich people does not negate laws of economics.
I want a spending policy of full employment and a higher minimum wage, and yes, I do want redistributionary taxes (aka taxes on rich people) to pay for it. But if we want to mitigate gentrification and inflation then we need to moderate demand. That could include what I call truth in pricing policies - policies prohibiting the display of any price other than the point of commerce price which includes sales taxes and all other fees including shipping. I believe it should include a complete redesign of how government contracts with private business and of how private banks, which are protected by the government, should capitalize borrowers. We like to talk about gentrification being a thing that evil real estate developers do, but we don't want to admit that the engineer at an aeronautical company browsing Zillow and the lab technician ordering ramen are among the main drivers of gentrification. Money in your pocket is a weapon that gives you power. (And when our state capitalist system uses the printing press - its fiat wealth-creating power - to give incredibly greater amounts of money to a shrinking group of people, it is giving a much greater amount of power to those people and those close to them than it gives to others, and it places those people in a position of patronage and everyone else in a position of servitude. The neighborhood will look like how those people spend to make it look like. And there will be increasing amounts of class resentment between the blue collar working class and the liberal and lucky white collar class.)
I am considering compulsory savings, for example increasing workers' payments into social security, as a way to put downward pressure on demand, and also to reduce volatility. Supposedly middle class people in big metros are putting nothing away because of how high their cost of living is, and my guess is forcing people to save more money will force them to cut back in aesthetic spending. Yes, it's paternalist. Yes, most people would greatly dislike it. But these are the choices that need to be made for these people to be economically safe and for the market system to be stable.
