4 ms·

> For example, with basic income Oh a UBI communist again. Sooner or later every problem discussed leads to someone suggesting the good ole "tax the rich". >

> For example, with basic income Oh a UBI communist again. Sooner or later every problem discussed leads to someone suggesting the good ole "tax the rich". > paying people to stay home to care for their kids. Why should I pay somebody else to stay home with _their_ kids? What you and other UBIs are suggesting is nothing else than "redistribute other peoples wealth" communism. It _only_ works if you take (by force) from one guy and give it to the other guy. It is not a _solution_ in any form, it is simply mugging.

e12e 11y ago
> It _only_ works if you take (by force) from one guy and give it to the other guy. That's how taxation and government funding works. Are you advocating no taxation, and no government?
- muuh-gnu 11y ago
  Whatever I'm advocating, youre advocating flat out mugging, and to conceal that, youre giving it other names. Muging, aka forcible redistribution of other peoples wealth is called "communism", so stop pretending youre advocating something completely different by rebranding it over and over and over again. UBI _doesnt work_ without forcibly taking from one group of people and giving it to another group. How forcible redistribution ends up you saw in Soviet Russia. Are you earning so little that you'd rather see our economy crumble like Soviet Russia, than to have hard working people keeping their wages to themselves without being mugged by envious low-earners?
  - e12e 11y ago
    I'm sure we can agree to disagree on what are the most viable and desirable ways to distribute wealth, but any form of taxation is backed by force, and any spending of that tax leads to it being given to someone else. If you don't pay taxes, you go to jail. When government hires someone to do a job, they give some of that money to someone else.
    - muuh-gnu 11y ago
      > most viable and desirable ways to distribute wealth None. > If you don't pay taxes, you go to jail. "If you dont pay protection money, we demolish your restaurant." So essentially youre advocating for a society thats indistinguishable from a Yakuza-run shanty town. Congrats, which basically ends our small discourse.
  - spacehome 11y ago
    I don't agree with you, but I'm sorry you're getting downvoted for contributing constructively to the conversation.
pbhjpbhj 11y ago
>Why should I pay somebody else to stay home with _their_ kids? // A very short and simplistic argument: Does having rich people benefit all of society? If it doesn't then we should tax the rich to create more wealth-equality. If having wealth inequality does benefit society then we - democratic societies - should enable parents to raise their children to become rich [not necessarily financially but in skills at least] so that they can benefit the rest of society. Another very simplistic argument is that we require the younger generations to work when we get old, children are a necessary part of the continuation of the state. If the state is valuable, or at least more valuable than other modes of government that would otherwise take hold or encroach on the population, then its continued existence should be encouraged. If a state government is damaging to child rearing then ultimately it will fail as the population of the state falls below sustainable levels. [Barring models that are selective from a surrounding population, in which case the state would have to encourage the surrounding population to generate more population with the characteristics they select for.]
- muuh-gnu 11y ago
  > Does having rich people benefit all of society? Who cares? > If it doesn't then we should tax the rich So if society is comprised of 10 people, and you devour one of them and redistribute to the other 9, thats OK simply because the 9 recipients benefit? > If having wealth inequality does benefit society Youre constructing your argument from a false premise, that the mob, or "society" as you call it, has a moral right to do everything it wants as long as it somehow extracts a benefit from that action. If you can gang up and rob your own rich, why not arm up and attack a neighboring country and enslave its population? It would be a benefit for the stronger society after all. Or why not introduce slavery again? It certainly would be a benefit for the society of slave owners. Etc. Going by your "benefit über alles" line of thinking, you can legitimize basically any kind of atrocity imaginable.
  - consz 11y ago
    Do you consider taxing a rich person the same as devouring them? If not, what do you think is the point of your hypothetical?
dang 11y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10524024 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10524024 and marked it off-topic.

e12e 11y ago

> It _only_ works if you take (by force) from one guy and give it to the other guy. That's how taxation and government funding works. Are you advocating no taxation, and no government?

muuh-gnu 11y ago
Whatever I'm advocating, youre advocating flat out mugging, and to conceal that, youre giving it other names. Muging, aka forcible redistribution of other peoples wealth is called "communism", so stop pretending youre advocating something completely different by rebranding it over and over and over again. UBI _doesnt work_ without forcibly taking from one group of people and giving it to another group. How forcible redistribution ends up you saw in Soviet Russia. Are you earning so little that you'd rather see our economy crumble like Soviet Russia, than to have hard working people keeping their wages to themselves without being mugged by envious low-earners?
- e12e 11y ago
  I'm sure we can agree to disagree on what are the most viable and desirable ways to distribute wealth, but any form of taxation is backed by force, and any spending of that tax leads to it being given to someone else. If you don't pay taxes, you go to jail. When government hires someone to do a job, they give some of that money to someone else.
  - muuh-gnu 11y ago
    > most viable and desirable ways to distribute wealth None. > If you don't pay taxes, you go to jail. "If you dont pay protection money, we demolish your restaurant." So essentially youre advocating for a society thats indistinguishable from a Yakuza-run shanty town. Congrats, which basically ends our small discourse.
- spacehome 11y ago
  I don't agree with you, but I'm sorry you're getting downvoted for contributing constructively to the conversation.

pbhjpbhj 11y ago

>Why should I pay somebody else to stay home with _their_ kids? // A very short and simplistic argument: Does having rich people benefit all of society? If it doesn't then we should tax the rich to create more wealth-equality. If having wealth inequality does benefit society then we - democratic societies - should enable parents to raise their children to become rich [not necessarily financially but in skills at least] so that they can benefit the rest of society. Another very simplistic argument is that we require the younger generations to work when we get old, children are a necessary part of the continuation of the state. If the state is valuable, or at least more valuable than other modes of government that would otherwise take hold or encroach on the population, then its continued existence should be encouraged. If a state government is damaging to child rearing then ultimately it will fail as the population of the state falls below sustainable levels. [Barring models that are selective from a surrounding population, in which case the state would have to encourage the surrounding population to generate more population with the characteristics they select for.]

muuh-gnu 11y ago
> Does having rich people benefit all of society? Who cares? > If it doesn't then we should tax the rich So if society is comprised of 10 people, and you devour one of them and redistribute to the other 9, thats OK simply because the 9 recipients benefit? > If having wealth inequality does benefit society Youre constructing your argument from a false premise, that the mob, or "society" as you call it, has a moral right to do everything it wants as long as it somehow extracts a benefit from that action. If you can gang up and rob your own rich, why not arm up and attack a neighboring country and enslave its population? It would be a benefit for the stronger society after all. Or why not introduce slavery again? It certainly would be a benefit for the society of slave owners. Etc. Going by your "benefit über alles" line of thinking, you can legitimize basically any kind of atrocity imaginable.
- consz 11y ago
  Do you consider taxing a rich person the same as devouring them? If not, what do you think is the point of your hypothetical?

dang 11y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10524024 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10524024 and marked it off-topic.