3 ms·

As I stated in my own comment, we already have a form of this today, so clearly I do think it is similar to our current system. However, I think that a defining

As I stated in my own comment, we already have a form of this today, so clearly I do think it is similar to our current system. However, I think that a defining differentiator is that a basic income can assist in luxury assistance beyond pure help. That is to say, if we offer purely assistive programs that are arguably necessary to a subset of the population (such as healthcare), it is clearly fundamentally unfair, but arguably morally net positive. If however, you offer a check that the person can use at their discretion (and thus choose to for example use it for vacation or gambling or any purpose they choose), then it is unfair and morally questionable. I think this is obvious. Separately, I do not think it is unfair description at all, but rather an objective measure of the service proposed, as opposed to a subjective one from thethe population that stands to gain vs the population that stands to lose. I have listed scenarios that I think are fundamentally unfair: young able-bodied members of society with no dependents receiving aid whereas older members of society that have dependents would not. It doesn't matter to me that "we already" do unfair things, this point has not been at all addressed. Existing wrongs are not arguments for new wrongs. Additionally, regardless of whether you agree with the fundamental morality of these situations, I think you can't argue with proposed consequences. I think that this system will absolutely make immigration harder in the US (through increased "protective" insular policies to keep "freeloaders" out), and thus hurt the economy as a whole.

Retra 11y ago
I still don't see how that's an argument. How is it unfair to offer US citizens the resources collected by the US government? That is the express reason the concept of a "US citizen" exists. US citizens pay taxes. They choose to distribute that money among themselves. That is the purpose of the US government: to protect and serve the interests of US citizens. If you feel that this is morally wrong, then I don't see how you can't argue that every single aspect of any government is morally wrong. The fact that I live in the US and not Syria is unfair, but it's not morally wrong. "If however, you offer a check that the person can use at their discretion (and thus choose to for example use it for vacation or gambling or any purpose they choose), then it is unfair and morally questionable. I think this is obvious." Do you have a job? Are there stipulations on how you can spend your money? Because you are arguing that paying people without such stipulation is morally questionable. And furthermore, Immigration is already controlled. You don't get US Citizenship without the approval of the federal government. How does this change that? They let fewer people get citizenship? If these immigrants are benefiting the economy, then surely they are worth the basic income we'd be paying them for that benefit. Which gets me to my point: You're not handing out free money for nothing. You're paying people to be economic participants. There's no reason to require stipulations on that, and no reason for you to think it's considerably more unfair to anybody than the regular variation in life's circumstances.
- tolmasky 11y ago
  > US citizens pay taxes. They choose to distribute that money among themselves. That is the purpose of the US government: to protect and serve the interests of US citizens. Non-citizens pay taxes too. Residents/green-card holders/visa-holders pay full income taxes without getting full benefits. Everyone pays state sales tax if there is one. > If you feel that this is morally wrong, then I don't see how you can't argue that every single aspect of any government is morally wrong. The fact that I live in the US and not Syria is unfair, but it's not morally wrong. Your argument is "the US government: to protect and serve the interests of US citizens.", so I don't see how you can think there exists ANYTHING that the US government does for its citizens at the expense of its non-citizens that isn't morally wrong. Since the reason corporations exist is to benefit shareholders does that automatically make all their actions ethical as long as they increase share value? Obviously not. Thus, I think we can conclude that its possible for the US government to do things that help its citizens which are morally wrong. > Do you have a job? Are there stipulations on how you can spend your money? Because you are arguing that paying people without such stipulation is morally questionable. Uhm, the difference is my employer and myself mutually agreed to the transaction. That is obviously why he can't stipulate what I can do with my money, whereas with taxes, which are taken from me, and which I by your own argument a few sentences above explained have some control of through our votes as US citizens, we do have a say in. Let me use your own logic here: "plenty of US services have stipulations on them, such as voting which you can't be a felon for, for example. THUS we should be able to have stipulations on these new services". > If these immigrants are benefiting the economy, then surely they are worth the basic income we'd be paying them for that benefit. Sure, but that doesn't mean they'll actually make it in. We already turn away lots of people that would be incredibly beneficial to our economy. I am arguing that a policy such as this would further these bad policies. However, if you believe that the government always makes the right choices, rather than our immigration policies being a mess of special interests and constituencies, then I suppose we are at a fundamental impasse.
  - Retra 11y ago
    "Your argument is "the US government: to protect and serve the interests of US citizens.", No, it isn't. My argument is that it is not morally wrong for the government to give money to its citizens without stipulating its use. At least it's not any less wrong than having everyone pay taxes that fund schools, roads, and hospitals they don't use. (Things which, if you objected to them, you could negate most of the other things we have a government for.) Basic income is not some petty luxury bonus, it's a form of social welfare. And how is BIG not a mutually agreed to transaction? If you don't want the money, I'm sure you can find a way to send it back. Stipulate it yourself if you think it should be stipulated. "THUS we should be able to have stipulations on these new services" We can have stipulations. There's nothing preventing that. We just don't want them, as that's the whole point of basic income. You're trying to claim we can't not have them, which is absurd. And stop overusing the word 'obvious.'

Retra 11y ago

I still don't see how that's an argument. How is it unfair to offer US citizens the resources collected by the US government? That is the express reason the concept of a "US citizen" exists. US citizens pay taxes. They choose to distribute that money among themselves. That is the purpose of the US government: to protect and serve the interests of US citizens. If you feel that this is morally wrong, then I don't see how you can't argue that every single aspect of any government is morally wrong. The fact that I live in the US and not Syria is unfair, but it's not morally wrong. "If however, you offer a check that the person can use at their discretion (and thus choose to for example use it for vacation or gambling or any purpose they choose), then it is unfair and morally questionable. I think this is obvious." Do you have a job? Are there stipulations on how you can spend your money? Because you are arguing that paying people without such stipulation is morally questionable. And furthermore, Immigration is already controlled. You don't get US Citizenship without the approval of the federal government. How does this change that? They let fewer people get citizenship? If these immigrants are benefiting the economy, then surely they are worth the basic income we'd be paying them for that benefit. Which gets me to my point: You're not handing out free money for nothing. You're paying people to be economic participants. There's no reason to require stipulations on that, and no reason for you to think it's considerably more unfair to anybody than the regular variation in life's circumstances.

tolmasky 11y ago
> US citizens pay taxes. They choose to distribute that money among themselves. That is the purpose of the US government: to protect and serve the interests of US citizens. Non-citizens pay taxes too. Residents/green-card holders/visa-holders pay full income taxes without getting full benefits. Everyone pays state sales tax if there is one. > If you feel that this is morally wrong, then I don't see how you can't argue that every single aspect of any government is morally wrong. The fact that I live in the US and not Syria is unfair, but it's not morally wrong. Your argument is "the US government: to protect and serve the interests of US citizens.", so I don't see how you can think there exists ANYTHING that the US government does for its citizens at the expense of its non-citizens that isn't morally wrong. Since the reason corporations exist is to benefit shareholders does that automatically make all their actions ethical as long as they increase share value? Obviously not. Thus, I think we can conclude that its possible for the US government to do things that help its citizens which are morally wrong. > Do you have a job? Are there stipulations on how you can spend your money? Because you are arguing that paying people without such stipulation is morally questionable. Uhm, the difference is my employer and myself mutually agreed to the transaction. That is obviously why he can't stipulate what I can do with my money, whereas with taxes, which are taken from me, and which I by your own argument a few sentences above explained have some control of through our votes as US citizens, we do have a say in. Let me use your own logic here: "plenty of US services have stipulations on them, such as voting which you can't be a felon for, for example. THUS we should be able to have stipulations on these new services". > If these immigrants are benefiting the economy, then surely they are worth the basic income we'd be paying them for that benefit. Sure, but that doesn't mean they'll actually make it in. We already turn away lots of people that would be incredibly beneficial to our economy. I am arguing that a policy such as this would further these bad policies. However, if you believe that the government always makes the right choices, rather than our immigration policies being a mess of special interests and constituencies, then I suppose we are at a fundamental impasse.
- Retra 11y ago
  "Your argument is "the US government: to protect and serve the interests of US citizens.", No, it isn't. My argument is that it is not morally wrong for the government to give money to its citizens without stipulating its use. At least it's not any less wrong than having everyone pay taxes that fund schools, roads, and hospitals they don't use. (Things which, if you objected to them, you could negate most of the other things we have a government for.) Basic income is not some petty luxury bonus, it's a form of social welfare. And how is BIG not a mutually agreed to transaction? If you don't want the money, I'm sure you can find a way to send it back. Stipulate it yourself if you think it should be stipulated. "THUS we should be able to have stipulations on these new services" We can have stipulations. There's nothing preventing that. We just don't want them, as that's the whole point of basic income. You're trying to claim we can't not have them, which is absurd. And stop overusing the word 'obvious.'