4 ms·

I think the confusion comes from the use of the term 'basic income'. There is a difference between income assistance that is given to everyone in order to simp

by gwright 11y ago

I think the confusion comes from the use of the term 'basic income'. There is a difference between income assistance that is given to everyone in order to simplify the delivery of government benefits (generally to avoid having to have complicated needs/eligibility requirements and the associated enforcement mechanisms) and and a guaranteed income that is not just assistance but in fact a sufficient amount to live on. I think the difficulty in evaluating a basic income mechanism is in understanding how such a program would work with different amounts of basic income, $200/month, $500/month, $1000/month? Is it per person? per household? extra amounts per child? Is it adjusted geographically? Depending on how you answer those questions you get different incentives and different costs for the program. While I don't have good answers to many of those questions I don't think a basic income program can work if it is construed as a way to enable anyone to simply quit their job, pursue their artistic or intellectual pursuits, and have 'the government' (i.e. other people) pay for that privilege. That type of an existence, while desirable, is not a 'right' to be supported by forcibly taking assets away from other people (taxing/redistribution of wealth).

Mikeb85 11y ago
> forcibly taking assets away from other people (taxing/redistribution of wealth). Taxation is not "taking assets away". Everyone that lives and works in a Western country today is able to because of successive generations who have built this society. If you have a computer job today, it's thanks to the people who developed the first computers years ago. Who went to universities other people built, travelled on infrastructure the government built, and so on. You know what a country without taxes looks like? The 3rd world. Dirt roads, no power or water, no police or emergency services. That's what life without taxes is. And no the private sector doesn't pick up the slack - they buy big trucks, haul away resources and live in a separate country, where nice things are paid for by the government through taxes. The question shouldn't be "what's fair?". But "what sort of society do we want?". If paying hipsters to do nothing but sip coffee all day builds a better society (who knows, maybe those bored hipsters will do something creative like start an app or something), we should be all for it. I'd rather sip coffee in Paris while paying 75% tax than live in Somalia paying no taxes.
- gwright 11y ago
  Taxing is certainly about forcibly taking assets. That is a descriptive statement, not an judgmental statement. The details though are important, from who, for what, and how much? I don't understand why you think that utilizing the wealth/knowledge/resources generated/developed by previous generations is something specific to 'Western' countries. You don't say so explicitly but you seem to be suggesting that those assets should be controlled by and available for distribution via the "government". You don't say why that should be true, but it implies to me an argument against private property rights since you are assuming all those assets are under the control (or should be under control) of "the government" I don't see any attempt to explain how or why the government should gain that control other than some handwaving about 'what do we want?' and some ever harder to understand handwaving about 'what is fair?' being an inappropriate question. I'm not sure why you concluded that I was advocating for no taxes. But I will certainly advocate against taking my money and giving it to hipsters to do nothing but sip coffee because that is what 'society wants'.

by gwright 11y ago

Mikeb85 11y ago

> forcibly taking assets away from other people (taxing/redistribution of wealth). Taxation is not "taking assets away". Everyone that lives and works in a Western country today is able to because of successive generations who have built this society. If you have a computer job today, it's thanks to the people who developed the first computers years ago. Who went to universities other people built, travelled on infrastructure the government built, and so on. You know what a country without taxes looks like? The 3rd world. Dirt roads, no power or water, no police or emergency services. That's what life without taxes is. And no the private sector doesn't pick up the slack - they buy big trucks, haul away resources and live in a separate country, where nice things are paid for by the government through taxes. The question shouldn't be "what's fair?". But "what sort of society do we want?". If paying hipsters to do nothing but sip coffee all day builds a better society (who knows, maybe those bored hipsters will do something creative like start an app or something), we should be all for it. I'd rather sip coffee in Paris while paying 75% tax than live in Somalia paying no taxes.

gwright 11y ago
Taxing is certainly about forcibly taking assets. That is a descriptive statement, not an judgmental statement. The details though are important, from who, for what, and how much? I don't understand why you think that utilizing the wealth/knowledge/resources generated/developed by previous generations is something specific to 'Western' countries. You don't say so explicitly but you seem to be suggesting that those assets should be controlled by and available for distribution via the "government". You don't say why that should be true, but it implies to me an argument against private property rights since you are assuming all those assets are under the control (or should be under control) of "the government" I don't see any attempt to explain how or why the government should gain that control other than some handwaving about 'what do we want?' and some ever harder to understand handwaving about 'what is fair?' being an inappropriate question. I'm not sure why you concluded that I was advocating for no taxes. But I will certainly advocate against taking my money and giving it to hipsters to do nothing but sip coffee because that is what 'society wants'.