5 ms·

Base income does not come out of nothing though. You need state income, which depends on taxation, which depends on people working and consuming.

by csvan 11y ago

gaius 11y ago
Yes that is the elephant in the corner of the so-called "sharing" economy - who is paying their taxes, who is paying for the basic infrastructure that all these services piggyback on? You can't have Uber without well-maintained roads for example. You can't even have AirBnB without refuse collectors.
- icebraining 11y ago
  What makes you think they don't pay taxes? AirBnB has even been forced to collect hotel taxes in SF, besides the regular taxes that all companies pay.
  - s73v3r 11y ago
    That's one city. They operate in a hell of a lot more places than just SF.
    - icebraining 11y ago
      The "even" is not in my post by chance.
danieltillett 11y ago
Of course, but if those working are efficient enough this can be supported. Once upon a time 99% of people were peasants and now we have the majority of the population providing non- essential services.
- chii 11y ago
  > majority of the population providing non- essential services. 'essentiality' doesn't come into the equation. Those who managed to amass a fortune being more efficient will want servants and other people to serve them (entertainers, sex workers, etc etc), which cannot easily be provided by machines. The economy will revert back to a fuedal one, where you become "owned" by the rich. Unless, of course, the people rebel, and bring on a socialist/communist form of gov't. I doubt that will happen though, becase the rich will see it coming, and nip it in the bud.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    Why would the wants of the rich require a reversion to a feudal economy? Even if you have widespread basic income, the rich will have no trouble finding people wishing to earn more and willing to trade their time for that.
    - VLM 11y ago
      WRT primate thinking "I own you" is way more dominant than "I am willing to fairly trade with you".
sgt101 11y ago
Unless the state owns the means of production. What if the future is red?
- F2468 11y ago
  A red future is a dark future. So let's hope we don't go down that road.
- VLM 11y ago
  red doesn't sell well in the USA. We'll have full communism but we'll market it as something else. Probably still calling it the "free market capitalism". That's what we inaccurately call our current system and nobody blinks. Most likely it'll roll out like public libraries / utilities. I already drive on government owned streets kept safe by government paid cops and clean by government paid trash pickup to visit the government owned library to use the government owned photocopier when I need to do legacy media stuff. Not a huge extension of the concept at the library to use the government owned 3d printer to make stuff or the government owned protein sequencer to make me soylent-tier food, maybe in 30 years.
  - geggam 11y ago
    All of those govt paid employees are paid by you... their employer. Not the govt. The govt owns nothing nor employees anyone.
    - gambiting 11y ago
      I genuinely don't see the distinction.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      The government owns things and employs people as much as any corporation does, and as much as the government exists at all.
      - geggam 11y ago
vmateixeira 11y ago
Can you consider not needing to work at all? Let's imagine that machinery/robots can make all manpower obsolete. Why would you still need to work if everything could be provided without cost? Why would you need money at all? Couldn't you just lay back, relax and enjoy? The answer is no, just because human nature doesn't like equality. Nothing more.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  The answer is because the automation still costs money, and that, even if creating clothing was completely automated, the materials would still cost money, and as such, they'd still charge for the clothes. And unless you've got a job (or basic income, but I don't believe that's ever going to happen), you're not going to be able to pay for the clothes, no matter how cheap they are. Same with food. Even more so for housing.

Base income does not come out of nothing though. You need state income, which depends on taxation, which depends on people working and consuming.

by csvan 11y ago

Base income does not come out of nothing though. You need state income, which depends on taxation, which depends on people working and consuming.

gaius 11y ago

Yes that is the elephant in the corner of the so-called "sharing" economy - who is paying their taxes, who is paying for the basic infrastructure that all these services piggyback on? You can't have Uber without well-maintained roads for example. You can't even have AirBnB without refuse collectors.

icebraining 11y ago
What makes you think they don't pay taxes? AirBnB has even been forced to collect hotel taxes in SF, besides the regular taxes that all companies pay.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  That's one city. They operate in a hell of a lot more places than just SF.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    The "even" is not in my post by chance.

danieltillett 11y ago

Of course, but if those working are efficient enough this can be supported. Once upon a time 99% of people were peasants and now we have the majority of the population providing non- essential services.

chii 11y ago
> majority of the population providing non- essential services. 'essentiality' doesn't come into the equation. Those who managed to amass a fortune being more efficient will want servants and other people to serve them (entertainers, sex workers, etc etc), which cannot easily be provided by machines. The economy will revert back to a fuedal one, where you become "owned" by the rich. Unless, of course, the people rebel, and bring on a socialist/communist form of gov't. I doubt that will happen though, becase the rich will see it coming, and nip it in the bud.
- icebraining 11y ago
  Why would the wants of the rich require a reversion to a feudal economy? Even if you have widespread basic income, the rich will have no trouble finding people wishing to earn more and willing to trade their time for that.
  - VLM 11y ago
    WRT primate thinking "I own you" is way more dominant than "I am willing to fairly trade with you".

sgt101 11y ago

Unless the state owns the means of production. What if the future is red?

F2468 11y ago
A red future is a dark future. So let's hope we don't go down that road.
VLM 11y ago
red doesn't sell well in the USA. We'll have full communism but we'll market it as something else. Probably still calling it the "free market capitalism". That's what we inaccurately call our current system and nobody blinks. Most likely it'll roll out like public libraries / utilities. I already drive on government owned streets kept safe by government paid cops and clean by government paid trash pickup to visit the government owned library to use the government owned photocopier when I need to do legacy media stuff. Not a huge extension of the concept at the library to use the government owned 3d printer to make stuff or the government owned protein sequencer to make me soylent-tier food, maybe in 30 years.
- geggam 11y ago
  All of those govt paid employees are paid by you... their employer. Not the govt. The govt owns nothing nor employees anyone.
  - gambiting 11y ago
    I genuinely don't see the distinction.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    The government owns things and employs people as much as any corporation does, and as much as the government exists at all.
    - geggam 11y ago

vmateixeira 11y ago

Can you consider not needing to work at all? Let's imagine that machinery/robots can make all manpower obsolete. Why would you still need to work if everything could be provided without cost? Why would you need money at all? Couldn't you just lay back, relax and enjoy? The answer is no, just because human nature doesn't like equality. Nothing more.

s73v3r 11y ago
The answer is because the automation still costs money, and that, even if creating clothing was completely automated, the materials would still cost money, and as such, they'd still charge for the clothes. And unless you've got a job (or basic income, but I don't believe that's ever going to happen), you're not going to be able to pay for the clothes, no matter how cheap they are. Same with food. Even more so for housing.