3 ms·
But I have to echo eanzenberg's comment, > How do you reconcile the massive increase in spending this would cause? If you're giving each person $13k/yr, does
by deathanatos 10y ago
But I have to echo eanzenberg's comment,
> How do you reconcile the massive increase in spending this would cause?
If you're giving each person $13k/yr, does that not imply that you must then collect $13k/yr/person in taxes? Unless you're thinking it is all going to come from corporate taxes, then at least some of it must come from a citizen's taxes, no? (and if you do think this should come from corporations, do you not think that would have an effect on what gets passed to an employee? Why not pay a person $13k/yr less? — or more, since some people won't/can't work and we must cover them too?)
I have no idea if UBI is a good idea or not … but if people want to do it, I expect to know how it will be paid for.
- maxerickson 10y agoYou can just print the money or otherwise conjure it into existence. For instance, by telling banks to change numbers in their databases. It probably isn't a good idea, but it's possible.
- thaumasiotes 10y agoThat's still a transfer from productive people to unproductive people. It just takes the specific form of hyperinflation. There is no difference between taxing everyone 20% of their holdings, and printing yourself 25% of everyone else's holdings. Either way you end up with a fifth of the wealth, and everyone's purchasing power goes down so yours can go up.
- maxerickson 10y agoYeah, I get that. It still has economic impact. But you don't have to explicitly account for the payouts with receipts, which the post I replied to seemed to think was necessary.