Thoughts on Mobile Phone Service in Singapore (Hint: Prepaid)

Singapore's mobile phone service market is fairly competitive and consists of 3 major carriers (Singtel, StarHub, and M1) plus a couple niche carriers such as Grid Communications. Prepaid mobile service is particularly competitive, and that's something to keep in mind if you want to get service here. Unless you're an extremely heavy user, and maybe not even then, postpaid (contract) mobile phone service is unlikely to ever make financial sense.

Among the prepaid services there have been some recent changes: one for the better, and one not. Let's start with the bad news. If you are a light mobile phone user then prepaid service seems to be getting a bit more expensive. That's because the carriers are finding ways to make it slightly harder to keep your balance active for the traditional 180 day maximum. StarHub, for example, appears to have increased the minimum top up amount to S$18 if you want that top up value to be valid for 180 days, and then only if you buy a physical top up card. If you go online to top up your account then you have to pay S$20 (which adds S$23 in value) to extend the validity of your balance another 180 days.

That's the bad news. The good news is that you can pay as little as S$23 for 50 days (or maybe 49 days due to recharge rounding effects) of basic service. That basic service includes free incoming calls and text messages, 120 minutes of outgoing local calls, 500 outgoing local text messages, and S$12 added to your credit balance for that same period to spend on other services (such as international SMSes). And that's exactly what I do. That comes out to about 47 Singaporean cents per day for reasonable mobile phone service. StarHub offers substantially the same deal for S$2 more.

M1 sells SIM cards for S$5 if you shop around. (They also sell them for S$15. For purposes of the 50 day plan, just buy the S$5 card.) Mini- (standard) and Micro-SIM sizes are readily available, though at this writing the Nano-SIM size is hard to find in a prepaid SIM. That's OK, though, because you can find shops that'll cut the SIM down to proper size for you.

Another tip: if you go with StarHub, and especially if you live in Singapore, do not buy the "Tourist Prepaid" SIM card. That card is a decent offer if you're only going to stay in Singapore less than 90 days. However, the problem is that you can never extend the credit balance on that SIM more than 90 days, unlike StarHub's normal prepaid SIM cards which allow 180 day credit balances. Yes, Singapore's mobile carriers are "clever." Too clever.

In my view Singapore's IDA, the regulatory agency that's supposed to keep an eye on the mobile carriers, is much too passive. Carriers need to be much clearer and simpler in their communications with consumers, and they must provide accurate (and easily understandable) disclosures. They're not doing that, and that's causing consumer confusion. IDA ought to do a better job. While they're at it, IDA should insist on number portability across postpaid and prepaid services, in both directions. IDA's job is not to protect carriers. It's to ensure a well functioning mobile service market that serves consumers' best interests. In these two areas, disclosures and number portability, IDA is not fulfilling its responsibilities in my view.

Plan B: The FDA Must Comply

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is still dragging its heels and, as I write this, has not complied with a court order to make emergency contraception available without prescription and over-the-counter to anybody who wants it without any obstacles except normal payment.

Please excuse my using strong language, but here's the reality. At any age, women and girls seeking emergency contraception have semen already inside them. They have only 24 hours to take emergency contraception to have the best chance of preventing pregnancy. The idea that anyone should impede access to emergency contraception is utterly repugnant. I don't care what age we're talking about. Unless the woman wants to become pregnant, the only choice with sperm already swimming to find her egg is emergency contraception. Nobody sane would want otherwise for her. In fact, a parent aware of the situation who didn't try to help a young daughter avoid pregnancy should be thrown in jail as an unfit parent.

Yet the FDA is still responding to the insane who think somebody should put an obstacle in front of a woman or girl who needs this miracle medicine called Plan B that prevents unintended pregnancy. Plan B is medically proven safer than aspirin. Hundreds of medications are sold over the counter every day without anybody having to show a passport, driver's license, or birth certificate. (Most teenagers don't have those IDs.) Nobody is going to pay the selling price for Plan B to gulp them like Tic Tacs, and even Tic Tacs are more dangerous to human health.

Study after study demonstrates that Plan B doesn't encourage sexual intercourse. Not that that matters, but it doesn't. What Plan B does do is prevent abortions and unwanted babies.

Of course 13 year old girls should never have semen swimming inside them. Frankly if I had a daughter I would be delighted if she wanted to live in a convent until at least age 28. However, any girl of any age should be able to get Plan B with zero obstacles because semen swimming to find her egg is an emergency that requires no court, no consent, no debate, no bullshit. After that there may also be some idiot/criminal male thrown in prison or a gift box of condoms, but regardless of whether that happens no girl should get pregnant because some other idiot unduly influencing the FDA thinks she should show a passport in a CVS or Walgreens.

I'd go further, in fact. Plan B should be available everywhere. If Chuck E. Cheese's wants to sell Plan B, great, let them. Plan B should be available in restroom vending machines everywhere, too, including in schools. First aid kits should include Plan B as a standard item, and wherever condoms are sold Plan B should be sold as well.

GUBI Part 3: Can America Afford It?

Building on Part 2 of my ideas for America's Guaranteed Universal Basic Income, one popular question would undoubtedly be, "How could America possibly afford GUBI, at least as you describe it?"

Quite easily, actually. America is a wealthy country, and GUBI would make America wealthier and happier.

First keep in mind that government at all levels spends an enormous amount of money on programs and tax breaks that would be entirely or mostly eliminated with GUBI. I mentioned several previously, but there are others: Medicare and Medicaid (replaced with universal $10/visit and $10/drug basic healthcare at public and some contracted facilities), student loans ($5000/year public universities and technical colleges would replace those), Pell Grants, farm subsidies and price supports, trade adjustment benefits, Railroad Retirement benefits, and school lunch programs, among others. The government twists itself it knots trying to "target" assistance so much that the end result is an expensive mess that grifters and rentiers exploit. Social Security is America's most popular, most effective, and comparatively simplest program, and it should be enhanced and expanded with GUBI, particularly now in these distressing economic conditions. GUBI would also help many more Americans take entrepreneurial risks, leaving jobs they hate (or that left them), retraining, relocating (even overseas), and so on.

But let's take a look at the basic numbers. The annual GDP for the U.S. is about $16 trillion. Ignoring GUBI's GDP-boosting benefits -- and that's a big omission! -- let's assume 300 million Americans receiving an average of $11,500 in GUBI. (Both numbers are probably too large due to children, noncitizens, idle rich with no W-2s to qualify, and overseas/expatriating Americans, but this is a basic calculation.) That's $3.45 trillion, and that's about 21.6% of GDP. Let's round up to 22%. That's a big hunk of GDP, sure. However, current total government spending at all levels in the U.S. is about 37%, so GUBI would leave about 15% of GDP for public education, healthcare, military, public transportation, and other remaining government functions. That's enough, actually, particularly with the GUBI-associated healthcare changes I've included which would dramatically improve the cost efficiency of healthcare. And much of the military's budget is payroll which would drop quite a lot since servicemen/women would receive GUBI just like everyone else, and therefore the market-clearing price for volunteer soldiers should also fall. ("It depends," but that's a likely result. The military budget is far too large anyway.) The same is true for public education and healthcare which are labor-intensive, although the impacts should be modeled to quantify them. Crime- and prison-related expenses would also likely fall significantly with the elimination of poverty and the expansion of higher educational opportunities, and the victims of remaining crime would get more help.

On the revenue side, it works. The income threshold for the 50% marginal tax rate could be set low enough to fund at least GUBI, but that math works, particularly given the big drops in household medical and higher education outlays. A simple corporate income tax with loopholes eliminated, the estate tax, and a carbon tax would likely take care of the rest. Transition costs would likely be funded with debt (at record low bond interest rates).

In short, GUBI is very doable within generally accepted ideas of government and its role (and size) within the overall economy.

GUBI Part 2: Elder Benefit Refinements, Work Terms, and More

In Part 1 I introduced my ideas for the Guaranteed Universal Basic Income, or GUBI for short. One of the questions people might ask is, "Wouldn't there be many people who would choose not to work?  Is that a problem, and what would be the solution?"

Yes, there would be some people who decide not to work in non-stay-at-home, non-volunteer occupations, although living just above the poverty line is not too attractive. That's precisely the point, though: if you're a U.S. citizen your country will never allow you to be destitute, period.

However, there are a couple conditions:

1. That $20,000 GUBI for Americans 65 and older? Well, that would be the average. The minimum would be the adult GUBI ($11,500 in 2013 dollars but with the Chained CPI-E kicker and the 5 year survivor kicker if your spouse living in the same household dies). The maximum would be $30,000. Employers would continue to send W-2 forms, and you'd get points toward boosting your retirement benefit above $11,500 up to the $30,000 maximum based on your lifetime W-2s. For perspective, today's average Social Security retirement benefit is about $15,000 per year, and the maximum is barely over $30,000. Today Social Security has no minimum benefit and certainly no benefit based exclusively on citizenship.

2. As today, but also for women, you would be required to serve your country if the United States Congress votes to institute a military draft. The draft must be income- and wealth-blind (meaning no student deferments beyond the end of the academic year), military assignments must be free of political influence, and all able bodied children, grandchildren, nieces, and nephews of all members of Congress must be the first drafted. (Non-able bodied draftees who are still mentally capable would still serve albeit stateside.) The draft must be reauthorized at least every 18 months.

3. There would be a limited ability for the government to require adult GUBI recipients under age 62 to work outside the home to maintain benefits. That requirement would kick in only if there are neither minor children nor disabled adults in the same household (or if there is at least one nonworking parent already at home), the adult has not worked at least 20% of full time for the past 5 years (with students making satisfactory progress and disability/medical absences counted as working), the recipient has reached his/her 23rd birthday, and the recipient is at least mentally able to work. At least three distinctly different part-time jobs must be offered, and all must be either workable at home or reachable within a 45 minute commute on public transportation. All positions must be of a predominantly public/social benefit nature. One of the jobs may include a hazardous, extra exertion, off hours, and/or distant work bonus, and that difference must be clearly disclosed if offered. There would be reviews for satisfactory job performance. These work requirements would not kick in unless labor force participation for 23 to 61 year olds (inclusive) drops below 65% (assessed at a state level), i.e. unless there's a genuine problem. (On edit: a somewhat simpler way to do this, and one that would be constitutionally less problematic, is for the government to offer a variety of $1/hour jobs. Those jobs would generate W-2s, etc., and the Social Security Administration would warn affected recipients if the past 5 years shows less than, say, $2500 of W-2 reported income. The recipient would then have time to report the applicable work-equivalent exemption, if any, or to generate more W-2 earnings. And the government would always be the $1/hour employer of last resort.)

4. Remember that employers can set any compensation they want, and that can include supplemental group medical benefits or not. (Such benefits would be taxable as personal income but would be deductible as business expenses.) The minimum wage would end. However, they would have to offer sufficiently high compensation to induce people to work, and there would be harsh penalties for employing non-work eligible foreigners. That would be great: no American would be truly desperate to work (and thus vulnerable to exploitation), "internships" would need to be genuinely valuable, and employers would have a tougher time setting up modern sweatshops in rural America, in particular. The vast majority of employers would be thrilled with GUBI, though, precisely because they'd escape minimum wage and medical insurance requirements, and because GUBI would stimulate consumer demand for their products and services.

The Guaranteed Universal Basic Income: An Introduction

I'd like to introduce my ideas for the Guaranteed Universal Basic Income (GUBI) in the United States, starting with the fundamental terms then digging into the details.

Let's start with the headline: every U.S. citizen adult would receive $11,500 per year (2013 dollars), and every U.S. citizen child would receive $4,500, paid monthly. At age 65 the benefit would increase to $20,000 per year. Rich or poor, it doesn't matter: everybody receives the benefit. (The under 65 figures are very slightly over the U.S. poverty line, for reference.)

Simple, yes! Expensive? Not really, because here's a partial list of government programs that would be terminated: Social Security retirement benefits, Social Security disability benefits, Social Security survivors' benefits (mostly, except that orphaned children would receive the adult amount, and widows/widowers would receive an additional amount for up to 5 years equal to the child benefit), unemployment benefits, workers' compensation benefits, food and nutritional assistance programs (such as SNAP), "Section 8" housing benefits, home heating support programs, foster care and adoption assistance (mostly), Native American benefit programs, some veterans' benefits, and numerous tax expenditures (such as the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credits), among others.

The minimum wage would be abolished. However, labor unions would be free to organize through "card check" (e.g. independently administered Internet voting) and to negotiate "closed shop" contracts with management in every state if both agree.

Benefits would be administered and paid through the Social Security Administration. GUBI would be 100% free of federal, state, and local taxes.

Benefits would be indexed to inflation. Since "chained" inflation indices seem fashionable, OK: Chained CPI-U will be used in general to adjust benefits. However, if using the Chained CPI-E results in a higher benefit amount than the Chained CPI-U (both calculated from the 2013 base year), then Americans age 62 and older will receive a benefit based on the higher CPI-E amount. The CPI-E better reflects inflation experienced by older Americans, but they will never be penalized even if their inflation experience is less than general inflation.

Individuals age 57 and older when GUBI begins would be able to join GUBI (immediately if they wish) or receive Social Security retirement benefits under the existing program and formula, including COLAs and taxability. Once they start receiving benefits under either formula the decision is irrevocable. Note that Social Security payroll taxes would be abolished for GUBI recipients, so nobody would "lose" anything. The maximum retirement benefit is currently just over $30,000 at age 66 (increasing to 67) compared to GUBI at $11,500 until age 65 and $20,000 (average) thereafter (with different inflation, taxability, and survivor terms). Some older Americans (with relatively high incomes and long working careers resulting in maximum Social Security contributions) might want to stay in the existing program (and in existing Medicare), even if it means waiting for benefits. Other Americans would and should want the immediate tax free GUBI benefit.

Taxes would change a lot and for the better. As mentioned, Social Security payroll taxes would be abolished for all but "classic" Social Security participants. Only older Americans already receiving classic Social Security or those who opt out of GUBI (among those 57 and older when GUBI starts) would continue paying payroll taxes. General revenues would fund GUBI and its transition, and the tax system would be radically simplified. GUBI would be tax free, but there would be no personal deductions or exemptions, no child tax credits, and no earned income tax credits. Tax rates would be progressive and start at 15% (from dollar one excluding GUBI) and increase smoothly up to 50%. (Remember, there are no payroll taxes under GUBI.) That is, there would be no brackets per se but rather a smooth formula of gradually increasing marginal rates up to the income threshold for the top 50% marginal rate. There would be no weird "bubble brackets" in the effective tax rates because there would be no deductions or credits to phase out. Interest, dividends, and capital gains would be treated as ordinary income but all gains would be subject to inflation adjustment like GUBI. That is, you'd only pay tax on the after-inflation gains. Tax preferences for retirement savings would be abolished since everybody is getting a guaranteed GUBI annuity already, since GUBI helps working people save more, and since taxing only after-inflation gains encourages saving. The threshold for the top rate would also be adjusted for inflation. The mortgage interest deduction and primary residence capital gains exemption would be eliminated, although almost no one would owe capital gains on long held property due to inflation indexing and maintenance expenses. Deductibility of state and local taxes would be limited to income taxes based on a simple percentage of federal income tax. Charitable, medical, and educational deductions would be mostly or completely eliminated, as examples.

Estate taxes would start at a 15% rate for estates above $1 million in value and rise smoothly to a 50% rate on estate amounts above $20 million. Annual gift limits would be set equal to the GUBI. Loopholes would be firmly closed, as always.

GUBI benefits would be very well protected. "Reverse annuity" contracts for GUBI benefits would be illegal and unenforceable. GUBI benefits would be protected against child support/divorce judgments and creditor claims. GUBI could be suspended to those who are not tax compliant, but the beneficiary would have the opportunity to dispute the suspension if true poverty would result. Partial GUBI benefits could be awarded under court order as restitution to a victim of a crime (and/or survivors) but only for the duration of a beneficiary's incarceration. Parole boards may not consider GUBI impacts in their decisions. Back GUBI would be paid to anyone wrongly imprisoned but would not be counted against any other awards for wrongful imprisonment.

GUBI benefits would be payable to Americans living overseas at 75% of full GUBI, reflecting the fact that many possible overseas locations have lower costs of living. Overseas Americans would be responsible for paying any gap between U.S. and overseas taxation (and only the gap), and any foreign taxes paid on their 75% GUBI would be refundable from the U.S. (with caveats). Expatriating Americans would have to pay back the net present value of GUBI payments they've personally received (i.e. the current GUBI amount multiplied by the number of months they received GUBI), and they would have to "mark their financial assets to market," i.e. pay the capital gains taxes owed if they sold all assets, as with today's "exit tax."

GUBI data access would be fairly heavily restricted to protect privacy.

Since GUBI benefits would be contingent on citizenship (and quite attractive) there would need to be a change to automatic birthright citizenship. But it should be a very narrow limitation. For example, it might be that a child born in the U.S. to foreign parents is not a U.S. citizen unless the mother has a legal, long-term (non-tourist) right to stay or unless the child has continuously resided in the U.S., even illegally, for his/her first 18 years of life (with the presumption that he/she has). To facilitate GUBI eligibility determinations and administration all beneficiaries would be able to obtain and renew U.S. passport cards free of charge, although there would be a modest fee ($20) for replacing a lost card.

Paired with GUBI, the federal government would also be responsible for two important public goods: healthcare and education. The government would operate (partly directly, partly on a contract basis not to exceed 50% of the system) a national network of medical centers and elder care facilities offering $10/visit and $10/drug care to every GUBI recipient and covering all "essential" medical care. Much of this system would be a relatively simple expansion of the VA, the best part of U.S. healthcare. And government would be responsible for delivering free K-12 education and $5000/year public university and technical colleges, primarily building on the existing state institutions. The Pentagon could continue to offer recruitment bonuses such as paying the $5000/year for higher education, cutting the medical co-pays in half, and pushing veterans to the front of the line for elective procedures (maximum 15 days wait instead of 45). Public medical and higher education expenses could be deducted from the beneficiary's next monthly GUBI payment if the beneficiary chooses to pay that way. The aforementioned passport card would facilitate access to these services.

The Federal Reserve would be granted the authority, as part of its stabilization mandates, to inject cash into the economy through GUBI rather than through the banking system to prevent or to reduce the impacts of financial crises. The Fed must exhaust GUBI policy responses before resorting to banking system injections in crises.

That's GUBI, at least in introductory form. It's simple, effective, and fair. It reduces the economic distortions of government and gives the American private sector tremendous competitive advantages. Practically everybody wins, even wealthy Americans who would benefit tremendously from the wealth generation GUBI would unleash.

Thoughts on "Wiki Weapons"

I watched an interview with Cody Wilson, founder of Defense Distributed. Defense Distributed is trying to create a "wiki weapon," a set of downloadable blueprints for one or more gun models that anyone can use to print one or more guns using a 3D printer. Such guns would be plastic and have no serial numbers. I had a few reactions:

1. It'd probably be relatively easy to trace such guns to the printers that constructed them, thence to the owners of those printers. Especially if 3D printers are already inscribing small identifiers in the products they produce.

2. Those printers don't produce the explosive charges required for working ammunition.

3. The NRA, which comments on everything gun-related, won't comment on this new reality. I'm sure that's because it would harm the gun industry the NRA really represents if it became popular. But of course the NRA can't admit that truth, so they're saying nothing.

4. If you're the sort of person that believes you need a gun to fight against an overbearing government, then you don't actually need to stockpile guns any more. You just keep a 3D printer nearby and a set of digital plans. That's much safer and cheaper, because you don't actually need to blow your budget on 3D printing supplies unless and until you need your gun(s). And another reason not to stockpile is that the designs are bound to get better and better, so why fight your revolution with yesterday's model?

5. If you're the sort of person who thinks you'd win an arms race against a modern government, you're naive. Wiki guns don't change that.

6. If the price of 3D printing continues to fall expect a broad group of patent holders to try to do something political, much like Hollywood has convinced Congress to extend copyright protection to ridiculous lengths. Said another way, gun manufacturers are among those who like the status quo just fine.