What would give the inflation value over time as it grows, that would keep it from eroding the spending power of the recipients? We already see this issue under the current capitalist models that benefit the bankers and their constituents. I get that an asset based currency lacks necessary elasticity for economic growth, so where is the solution?
I read years ago a response to extremely rich folks on the left complaining about low taxes for the rich. It was along the lines of no one is stopping them from adding zeros onto their taxes, or stopping them from being more charitable. The truth this seems to expose is that it's not in most wealthy peoples hearts to be charitable except for virtue signaling and to toss some crumbs. It has me wondering what would protect those on the basic income from having schemes developed to defray the value of their monthly stipend to force them back into working for the wealth holders dreams? Man's capacity and desire to multiply their own wealth at the expense of their neighbors seems to be the stories of history, and not sure how this idea would be immune to this dynamic.
Some of those on the basic income would be jealous and hateful towards those who apply themselves for more, coveting what they have as they insist the results of the extra expenditure of energy and talent were unfair.
It seems there is an unfairness from both sides of the class equation, and no matter how you would draw up distributions there would always be those unhappy with their share demanding more than what is probably fair.
Seems people will have their issues regardless of the system implemented.
Seems people will have their issues regardless of the system implemented.
Yes, indeed, people are people. And USB isn't a solution to the problems we're confronted with. But it's a world of difference if the overarching system is based on the creation and maintaining of two distinct classes or not. We're always in a feedback-loop: we influence the socioeconomic environment, which in turn influences us, and so on. We're now in a negative feedback-loop, spiraling down to ever more greed and ever more inequality. It'll be difficult, but we can break out of that loop.
Free money from the sky? But doesn't that come from taxes which means less money for the staff which means the employees pay indirectly for the free money that was already theirs in the first place, right? You want to be Robin Hood, steal from the poor via stealing from the rich to then give to the poor what the poor already had in the first place? That is a big circle.
You really don't understand, do you? Yang wants to finance his plan by cutting existing welfare programs and a VAT, which would indeed be paid largely by the middle- and lower classes because rich people spend a much smaller percentage of their income on groceries... That's why Yang's plan sucks and in the post I already explained why UBI will never solve the real problem of the ever growing income- and wealth gap. But if you use your imagination, we could also finance this and other income redistribution schemes by taxing the rich and their corporations. It's not that hard really.
You are describing socialism but by another name. Obama preached the same message or redistribution of wealth that you talk about. Obama preached Robinhoodism.
I believe in rights and I believe in free markets. I do not believe in equality. I believe that you should have the freedom to do what you want to do. I do not want to put you in jail.
That's 100% true @baah :-) And we'll never get rid of all hierarchies; even in socialism there are still leaders and followers, that's just how we tick. But class, that is hierarchy grounded on material wealth with large gaps between them, that we can solve. We'll have to.
The reality, UBI has been tried, tested in numerous communities.
I know.
You seem to think that ubi hasn't been tried, hasn't been studied for over half a century.
No, I don't.
It doesn't matter, because we aren't part of such a reality.
That's obvious.
It seems, getting paid for making machines doesn't cut it
Of course not.
...fuck private property...
Indeed.
Workers do more than just "make machines". I really don't know what you're trying to say; you make no sense at all. It's not so hard a point this post makes: as long as the means of production, whatever they may be, are in the hands of a few individuals, the underlying problems that caused the circumstances under which a UBI seems like a reasonable solution will not be solved and the gap between rich and poor will grow.
A few things that come to mind reading this.
What would give the inflation value over time as it grows, that would keep it from eroding the spending power of the recipients? We already see this issue under the current capitalist models that benefit the bankers and their constituents. I get that an asset based currency lacks necessary elasticity for economic growth, so where is the solution?
I read years ago a response to extremely rich folks on the left complaining about low taxes for the rich. It was along the lines of no one is stopping them from adding zeros onto their taxes, or stopping them from being more charitable. The truth this seems to expose is that it's not in most wealthy peoples hearts to be charitable except for virtue signaling and to toss some crumbs. It has me wondering what would protect those on the basic income from having schemes developed to defray the value of their monthly stipend to force them back into working for the wealth holders dreams? Man's capacity and desire to multiply their own wealth at the expense of their neighbors seems to be the stories of history, and not sure how this idea would be immune to this dynamic.
Some of those on the basic income would be jealous and hateful towards those who apply themselves for more, coveting what they have as they insist the results of the extra expenditure of energy and talent were unfair.
It seems there is an unfairness from both sides of the class equation, and no matter how you would draw up distributions there would always be those unhappy with their share demanding more than what is probably fair.
Seems people will have their issues regardless of the system implemented.
Yes, indeed, people are people. And USB isn't a solution to the problems we're confronted with. But it's a world of difference if the overarching system is based on the creation and maintaining of two distinct classes or not. We're always in a feedback-loop: we influence the socioeconomic environment, which in turn influences us, and so on. We're now in a negative feedback-loop, spiraling down to ever more greed and ever more inequality. It'll be difficult, but we can break out of that loop.
Free money from the sky? But doesn't that come from taxes which means less money for the staff which means the employees pay indirectly for the free money that was already theirs in the first place, right? You want to be Robin Hood, steal from the poor via stealing from the rich to then give to the poor what the poor already had in the first place? That is a big circle.
You really don't understand, do you? Yang wants to finance his plan by cutting existing welfare programs and a VAT, which would indeed be paid largely by the middle- and lower classes because rich people spend a much smaller percentage of their income on groceries... That's why Yang's plan sucks and in the post I already explained why UBI will never solve the real problem of the ever growing income- and wealth gap. But if you use your imagination, we could also finance this and other income redistribution schemes by taxing the rich and their corporations. It's not that hard really.
You are describing socialism but by another name. Obama preached the same message or redistribution of wealth that you talk about. Obama preached Robinhoodism.
I like classism, assuming it includes local governments.
What does that mean, as in private property rights?
I believe in rights and I believe in free markets. I do not believe in equality. I believe that you should have the freedom to do what you want to do. I do not want to put you in jail.
That's 100% true @baah :-) And we'll never get rid of all hierarchies; even in socialism there are still leaders and followers, that's just how we tick. But class, that is hierarchy grounded on material wealth with large gaps between them, that we can solve. We'll have to.
I know.
No, I don't.
That's obvious.
Of course not.
Indeed.
Workers do more than just "make machines". I really don't know what you're trying to say; you make no sense at all. It's not so hard a point this post makes: as long as the means of production, whatever they may be, are in the hands of a few individuals, the underlying problems that caused the circumstances under which a UBI seems like a reasonable solution will not be solved and the gap between rich and poor will grow.