4 ms·
No, because money is not wealth. Owning money is equivalent to being considered to be owed something by society at large. Each group is roughly equally capable
by ThrustVectoring 11y ago
No, because money is not wealth. Owning money is equivalent to being considered to be owed something by society at large. Each group is roughly equally capable of trading that debt for the real goods and services they wish to receive in order to consider society's obligation satisfied. They're going to get different things, of course, but that's a side issue.
- awt 11y agoIn that case, wouldn't you say though that if you receive money without working for it, you aren't really owed anything by society at large? Is it possible to transfer the "having done work" from one person to another? And no, investing does not fall into this category.
- dragonwriter 11y ago> In that case, wouldn't you say though that if you receive money without working for it, you aren't really owed anything by society at large? One perspective on UBI is that it is compensatory payment to those harmed by factors which enable greater aggregate economic performance at the result of concentrating returns in a narrower group and driving down real wages for the masses.
- awt 11y agoI'm fine with it as long as it is voluntary.
- ThrustVectoring 11y agoNo? There's no distinction in my mind between having money and being owed the value of that money in real goods and services. Like, it's not a moral matter, more like an accounting identity. People who have money are owed things, and the debt can be resolved by exchanging said money for the things the money-owners want. This works not because people who own money "deserve" to get things, but because this is how society has decided to keep track of who should get things - that is, by paying for those things.