4 ms·

I'm surprised that so many people on HN support UBI, it sounds horrifying to me. Did you learn nothing from communism? By increasing taxes you decrease incentiv

by rayalez 10y ago

I'm surprised that so many people on HN support UBI, it sounds horrifying to me. Did you learn nothing from communism? By increasing taxes you decrease incentives for making wealth, and, more importantly, infringe on individual freedoms. Infringing on human rights of the rich people is one of the worst things you can do for the economy, because they are the people with means of production, and they are the people with options to go somewhere else. The premise that you are free to make as much money as you want and not be punished for it is one of the biggest things that made USA awesome in the first place. The idea behind UBI is that we can now afford it because we have abundance of resources to support it. If that were the case, these resources would be available without the need to coerce people out of their money. The only way to get those resources without taking away the freedom is to treat UBI as what it should be - a charity. Only when there's so much abundance that people are willingly giving away enough of their money to support everyone else, when it's a choice and not a coercion, will UBI have a chance at working without creepy and horrifying consequences.

papapra 10y ago
Did you at least read the article ? He writes about replacing the current welfare system with UBI. About the taxes, I think you are wrong because you think in black and white. It's not binary, it's a spectrum and you want to have a balance, in USA the current system is very favorable to the rich.
- rayalez 10y ago
  In the previous discussion a commenter pretty much explained why this wouldn't work: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11807840 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11807840 Also I think I can accept that a certain amount of taxes is a necessary evil. But let's treat it as such, and avoid taking more than absolutely necessary. In my opinion UBI is a step way too far in the wrong direction.
  - papapra 10y ago
    Why it is necessary evil ? You don't live alone in this world and I bet you profited enormously from the country, community that you live in.
    - rayalez 10y ago
      Because taxes are mandatory, they are taken from people by force. I am absolutely happy to give back to the community, when it's a voluntary decision, a choice I am free to make. Yes, I did benefit from living in a society, but I never signed up to owing them something for the rest of my life. It's beautiful when people are making a decision to contribute to society and help others, it's very different when they are coerced into it.
- aminok 10y ago
  There is no spectrum. Taxes on private income are grossly authoritarian and should be abolished for basic justice.
  - papapra 10y ago
    Take care with your ideology(for you it's seems it's a religion), that's all I can say to you.
    - aminok 10y ago
      I'm pretty 'religious' about not violating people's human rights. I think we have a moral duty to speak our minds when we perceive an injustice being done, and we should not shirk from our duty out of fear of social rejection.
withdavidli 10y ago
>The idea behind UBI is that we can now afford it because we have abundance of resources to support it. If that were the case, these resources would be available without the need to coerce business owners out of their money. This isn't true. Think about providing clean water, to the world. That's estimated at $10 billion/yr back in 2000, probably $20B/yr now with inflation(1). We spent almost $19B/yr on bottled water(2), which is usually taken from public water sources that the companies very little for, ~$2/million liters(3). This is not a reason to coerce businesses of their money, more that we do have the resources, but need to use/distribute it more wisely. 1:http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/23/world/price-of-safe-water-for-all-10-billion-and-the-will-to-provide-it.html http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/23/world/price-of-safe-water-... 2:http://www.wsj.com/articles/water-water-everywherein-bottles-1440581400 http://www.wsj.com/articles/water-water-everywherein-bottles... 3:http://blogs.reuters.com/breakingviews/2015/04/02/nestle-wades-into-purest-form-of-water-risk/ http://blogs.reuters.com/breakingviews/2015/04/02/nestle-wad...
passivepinetree 10y ago
One of the author's main points was financial: he posits that (his idea of) a UBI would be much more inexpensive (and therefore require fewer taxes). Quote: "As of 2014, the annual cost of a UBI would have been about $200 billion cheaper than the current system. By 2020, it would be nearly a trillion dollars cheaper." Also, FWIW, the author writes for a conservative think tank.

by rayalez 10y ago

papapra 10y ago

Did you at least read the article ? He writes about replacing the current welfare system with UBI. About the taxes, I think you are wrong because you think in black and white. It's not binary, it's a spectrum and you want to have a balance, in USA the current system is very favorable to the rich.

rayalez 10y ago
In the previous discussion a commenter pretty much explained why this wouldn't work: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11807840 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11807840 Also I think I can accept that a certain amount of taxes is a necessary evil. But let's treat it as such, and avoid taking more than absolutely necessary. In my opinion UBI is a step way too far in the wrong direction.
- papapra 10y ago
  Why it is necessary evil ? You don't live alone in this world and I bet you profited enormously from the country, community that you live in.
  - rayalez 10y ago
    Because taxes are mandatory, they are taken from people by force. I am absolutely happy to give back to the community, when it's a voluntary decision, a choice I am free to make. Yes, I did benefit from living in a society, but I never signed up to owing them something for the rest of my life. It's beautiful when people are making a decision to contribute to society and help others, it's very different when they are coerced into it.
aminok 10y ago
There is no spectrum. Taxes on private income are grossly authoritarian and should be abolished for basic justice.
- papapra 10y ago
  Take care with your ideology(for you it's seems it's a religion), that's all I can say to you.
  - aminok 10y ago
    I'm pretty 'religious' about not violating people's human rights. I think we have a moral duty to speak our minds when we perceive an injustice being done, and we should not shirk from our duty out of fear of social rejection.

withdavidli 10y ago

>The idea behind UBI is that we can now afford it because we have abundance of resources to support it. If that were the case, these resources would be available without the need to coerce business owners out of their money. This isn't true. Think about providing clean water, to the world. That's estimated at $10 billion/yr back in 2000, probably $20B/yr now with inflation(1). We spent almost $19B/yr on bottled water(2), which is usually taken from public water sources that the companies very little for, ~$2/million liters(3). This is not a reason to coerce businesses of their money, more that we do have the resources, but need to use/distribute it more wisely. 1:http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/23/world/price-of-safe-water-for-all-10-billion-and-the-will-to-provide-it.html http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/23/world/price-of-safe-water-... 2:http://www.wsj.com/articles/water-water-everywherein-bottles-1440581400 http://www.wsj.com/articles/water-water-everywherein-bottles... 3:http://blogs.reuters.com/breakingviews/2015/04/02/nestle-wades-into-purest-form-of-water-risk/ http://blogs.reuters.com/breakingviews/2015/04/02/nestle-wad...

passivepinetree 10y ago

One of the author's main points was financial: he posits that (his idea of) a UBI would be much more inexpensive (and therefore require fewer taxes). Quote: "As of 2014, the annual cost of a UBI would have been about $200 billion cheaper than the current system. By 2020, it would be nearly a trillion dollars cheaper." Also, FWIW, the author writes for a conservative think tank.