5 ms·

> the nutty "taxation is immoral" argument. I agree that argument is nutty! That's why I didn't make it. Where did I say, in fact you supposedly quote me, "t

> the nutty "taxation is immoral" argument. I agree that argument is nutty! That's why I didn't make it. Where did I say, in fact you supposedly quote me, "taxation is immoral". I said taking money from some and giving it to others by force is immoral for the reasons people like him give. Taxation is moral so long as it is spent on programs that benefit everyone. The military, roads, a court system, the post office, police, etc. Taxation is immoral when you take from someone you "feel" has to much money and give it to someone you think "deserves" it. I know it's easy to make emotional arguments and I know it's easy to feel charitable with other people's money, I'm in no way rich btw, but you have to see the problem with that? > We all have a say in the laws. That's why it's fair we all have to live by them. Tyranny of the masses is a thing and something our founders tried to prevent.

lastyearman 10y ago
Everyone benefits from a strong middle class and not-too-poor class. Including you. Also I believe there is an argument to be made that more equal society is better for everyone involved.
- BigDaddyD 10y ago
  I agree, that's why I support a system that benefits them the most, free market Capitalism and a government that does only what it should.
  - lastyearman 10y ago
    What if it were true that free market nor capitalism no longer benefit the poor, what do we do then? I think this can be argued since all markets are already regulated (thus not entirely free) nor is capitalism taken to its logical extreme anywhere in the world.
    - BigDaddyD 10y ago
      > What if it were true that free market nor capitalism no longer benefit the poor, what do we do then? If that were true then we would switch to a better system. I don't think it is and I don't think there is one. I don't know what capitalism's logical extreme is but if you are talking about anarchy then I am not for that. I believe government serves a very important role in capitalism. It enforces contracts (legal system), protects third parties (environmental hazards), and defends against foreign or domestic aggression (police, military). This isn't to say capitalism is perfect! Of course not but it is better than every other conceived system and has proven so by bringing millions out of poverty.
      - lastyearman 10y ago
        Afaik income inequality has been rising despite the fact that markets have been deregulated. Of course the two may have no correlation, but if the current trajectory continues, then I suppose it's inevitable that something has to be done. As far as I can tell, if we must do something, then we can either deregulate more or implement socialistic schemes such as UBI.
  - shkkmo 10y ago
    So you think it makes more sense for the government to force companies to pay a minimum wage? How is that a free market? Yet without a minimum wage, poverty in the US would be tremendous. Wouldn't the market be freer if we slowly replaced that minimum wage with UBI (i.e. decrease minimum wage and increase UBI over time). The market would then be free to set prices more accurately because there would be a lower artificial price floor. This also helps create more jobs to offset the ones lost to automation, since people can afford to be paid less, a wider variety of jobs can be economically viable. Additionally, people would have more freedom in find jobs that they enjoy and are well suited for. All of this would increase economic efficiency. Thus, yes, UBI could benefit everyone by making our labour market freer and more efficient. Basically, UBI is a form of economic infrastructure, and thus is a MORAL thing to spend taxes on.
    - gwright 10y ago
      > So you think it makes more sense for the government to force companies to pay a minimum wage? How is that a free market? Yet without a minimum wage, poverty in the US would be tremendous. That is an assertion/opinion, not a fact. You are also confusing a problem (poverty) with a solution (minimum wage). There are many other ways to tackle poverty that don't involve distorting labor markets with minimum wage. There is also a strong argument to be made that a minimum wage that is above market prices hurts low-skilled workers by making it illegal for them to be employed. Personally I'd rather have the challenge of supporting people with low-paying jobs vs the challenge of supporting people with no job at all.
  - singhblom 10y ago
    I don't think anyone would ever argue that a government should do things it shouldn't. The most common disagreement is not if the government should do more than it should, but what exactly it should do. :P
elicash 10y ago
You wrote, "Taking money from one person and giving it to another by force is wrong." You had an "especially" in there, so you think it particularly applies here, but you still said that statement is true generally. And UBI advocates generally say it benefits everyone. In fact, that's why they prefer it over other government programs! Because it goes to everyone! I get the policy disagreement on this, but that's still different than the "taxes are immoral" argument. And that's the one that bothers me when I hear it because it's an attack on democracy. As to our founders - yes, they built protections in our Constitution. Is your point that UBI is Unconstitutional? Because that's a legal argument I'd be interested in reading!
- BigDaddyD 10y ago
  > And UBI advocates generally say it benefits everyone. It benefits the poorer at the expense of the rich. >In fact, that's why they prefer it over other government programs! I would support the UBI as a replacement for the current welfare system but only as a replacement and only because it is less morally bankrupt and ineffective. Just to clarify, I don't support the UBI in general but if you're willing to completely get rid of our current system then we can talk. > Is your point that UBI is Unconstitutional? No that was a response to the commenter supporting Democracy over Republicanism.
  - hexane360 10y ago
    But the argument is it benefits the poorer more than it hurts the rich. A society should search to maximize utility. Let's make some numbers up. One starving person has a utility of 1. One not starving person has a utility of 10. One mega-ultra-rich person has a utility of 100. One ultra-rich person has a utility of 99. If you take money from 1 mega-ultra-rich person and give it to 2 starving persons: 99-100 = -1 2*(10-1) = 18 +___ +17 So the society gains 17 units of utility from the change. Are you claiming that 1 unit of utility for the rich is more valuable than 18 units of utility for the poor? Because the rich person agreed to society's contract, and figured out that they gain much more utility from roads, labor, police, laws than they lost from UBI. A rich American wouldn't be rich if they didn't receive any benefits from society.
Kevin_S 10y ago
> Taxation is moral so long as it is spent on programs that benefit everyone. The military, roads, a court system, the post office, police, etc. > Taxation is immoral when you take from someone you "feel" has to much money and give it to someone you think "deserves" it. Dude... you're just framing it differently. You can easily look at UBI and taxes as they currently are as moneys from individuals that go into a large pot which is then spent to help the greater good. Roads do that, police do that, and so does public assistance programs like social security and welfare. But somehow UBI is different because it is cash? It's all the same. It does the same basic thing: lower income inequality. It isn't "feeling" they have too much money and "deserving" it. It would be a calculated number that is used to maximize total utility of the economy. You're the one making the emotional argument here. Not sure why anyone these days would oppose a system that would lower income inequality from the absurd point it has reached.
- BigDaddyD 10y ago
  I'll try and be more specific. If there are ten people in a country and money is dispersed in this way: Bottom 2 each have $10 Middle 6 each have $20 Top 2 each have $50 I would support a system that takes say... 10% from everyone. Bottom 2 are taxed $1 each == $2 Middle 6 are taxed $2 each == $12 Top 2 are taxed $5 each = $10 They then put all of the money in a "pot" to be spent on a military. This benefits everyone because a poor homeless person in Alabama will be defended equally as well as a middle class secretary in Georgia. However, if you tax the Top 2 for an extra 10% which comes out to $10 more and then put it in a "pot" that will only be spent on the Bottom 2, we have a problem. This is a problem because you are treating 20% of the population unfairly simply because they have more money than the other 80%. This is being charitable with their money and not letting them decide to do with it as they please. I support the poor in my own way by donating money, volunteering for charity, etc. but it is wrong for you to take a larger percent of my money and give it to another group of people for arbitrary reasons. > It would be a calculated number that is used to maximize total utility of the economy. I would love to see the geniuses and God level economists who can make those calculations and factor in every aspect of the economy. You can't, it's impossible.
  - 10y ago
empath75 10y ago
Wealth redistribution programs do benefit everyone in that it prevents masses of people from getting desperate enough to murder you and take your stuff.
- BigDaddyD 10y ago
  Emotional argument not found reality.

lastyearman 10y ago

Everyone benefits from a strong middle class and not-too-poor class. Including you. Also I believe there is an argument to be made that more equal society is better for everyone involved.

BigDaddyD 10y ago
I agree, that's why I support a system that benefits them the most, free market Capitalism and a government that does only what it should.
- lastyearman 10y ago
  What if it were true that free market nor capitalism no longer benefit the poor, what do we do then? I think this can be argued since all markets are already regulated (thus not entirely free) nor is capitalism taken to its logical extreme anywhere in the world.
  - BigDaddyD 10y ago
    > What if it were true that free market nor capitalism no longer benefit the poor, what do we do then? If that were true then we would switch to a better system. I don't think it is and I don't think there is one. I don't know what capitalism's logical extreme is but if you are talking about anarchy then I am not for that. I believe government serves a very important role in capitalism. It enforces contracts (legal system), protects third parties (environmental hazards), and defends against foreign or domestic aggression (police, military). This isn't to say capitalism is perfect! Of course not but it is better than every other conceived system and has proven so by bringing millions out of poverty.
    - lastyearman 10y ago
      Afaik income inequality has been rising despite the fact that markets have been deregulated. Of course the two may have no correlation, but if the current trajectory continues, then I suppose it's inevitable that something has to be done. As far as I can tell, if we must do something, then we can either deregulate more or implement socialistic schemes such as UBI.
- shkkmo 10y ago
  So you think it makes more sense for the government to force companies to pay a minimum wage? How is that a free market? Yet without a minimum wage, poverty in the US would be tremendous. Wouldn't the market be freer if we slowly replaced that minimum wage with UBI (i.e. decrease minimum wage and increase UBI over time). The market would then be free to set prices more accurately because there would be a lower artificial price floor. This also helps create more jobs to offset the ones lost to automation, since people can afford to be paid less, a wider variety of jobs can be economically viable. Additionally, people would have more freedom in find jobs that they enjoy and are well suited for. All of this would increase economic efficiency. Thus, yes, UBI could benefit everyone by making our labour market freer and more efficient. Basically, UBI is a form of economic infrastructure, and thus is a MORAL thing to spend taxes on.
  - gwright 10y ago
    > So you think it makes more sense for the government to force companies to pay a minimum wage? How is that a free market? Yet without a minimum wage, poverty in the US would be tremendous. That is an assertion/opinion, not a fact. You are also confusing a problem (poverty) with a solution (minimum wage). There are many other ways to tackle poverty that don't involve distorting labor markets with minimum wage. There is also a strong argument to be made that a minimum wage that is above market prices hurts low-skilled workers by making it illegal for them to be employed. Personally I'd rather have the challenge of supporting people with low-paying jobs vs the challenge of supporting people with no job at all.
- singhblom 10y ago
  I don't think anyone would ever argue that a government should do things it shouldn't. The most common disagreement is not if the government should do more than it should, but what exactly it should do. :P

elicash 10y ago

You wrote, "Taking money from one person and giving it to another by force is wrong." You had an "especially" in there, so you think it particularly applies here, but you still said that statement is true generally. And UBI advocates generally say it benefits everyone. In fact, that's why they prefer it over other government programs! Because it goes to everyone! I get the policy disagreement on this, but that's still different than the "taxes are immoral" argument. And that's the one that bothers me when I hear it because it's an attack on democracy. As to our founders - yes, they built protections in our Constitution. Is your point that UBI is Unconstitutional? Because that's a legal argument I'd be interested in reading!

BigDaddyD 10y ago
> And UBI advocates generally say it benefits everyone. It benefits the poorer at the expense of the rich. >In fact, that's why they prefer it over other government programs! I would support the UBI as a replacement for the current welfare system but only as a replacement and only because it is less morally bankrupt and ineffective. Just to clarify, I don't support the UBI in general but if you're willing to completely get rid of our current system then we can talk. > Is your point that UBI is Unconstitutional? No that was a response to the commenter supporting Democracy over Republicanism.
- hexane360 10y ago
  But the argument is it benefits the poorer more than it hurts the rich. A society should search to maximize utility. Let's make some numbers up. One starving person has a utility of 1. One not starving person has a utility of 10. One mega-ultra-rich person has a utility of 100. One ultra-rich person has a utility of 99. If you take money from 1 mega-ultra-rich person and give it to 2 starving persons: 99-100 = -1 2*(10-1) = 18 +___ +17 So the society gains 17 units of utility from the change. Are you claiming that 1 unit of utility for the rich is more valuable than 18 units of utility for the poor? Because the rich person agreed to society's contract, and figured out that they gain much more utility from roads, labor, police, laws than they lost from UBI. A rich American wouldn't be rich if they didn't receive any benefits from society.

Kevin_S 10y ago

> Taxation is moral so long as it is spent on programs that benefit everyone. The military, roads, a court system, the post office, police, etc. > Taxation is immoral when you take from someone you "feel" has to much money and give it to someone you think "deserves" it. Dude... you're just framing it differently. You can easily look at UBI and taxes as they currently are as moneys from individuals that go into a large pot which is then spent to help the greater good. Roads do that, police do that, and so does public assistance programs like social security and welfare. But somehow UBI is different because it is cash? It's all the same. It does the same basic thing: lower income inequality. It isn't "feeling" they have too much money and "deserving" it. It would be a calculated number that is used to maximize total utility of the economy. You're the one making the emotional argument here. Not sure why anyone these days would oppose a system that would lower income inequality from the absurd point it has reached.

BigDaddyD 10y ago
I'll try and be more specific. If there are ten people in a country and money is dispersed in this way: Bottom 2 each have $10 Middle 6 each have $20 Top 2 each have $50 I would support a system that takes say... 10% from everyone. Bottom 2 are taxed $1 each == $2 Middle 6 are taxed $2 each == $12 Top 2 are taxed $5 each = $10 They then put all of the money in a "pot" to be spent on a military. This benefits everyone because a poor homeless person in Alabama will be defended equally as well as a middle class secretary in Georgia. However, if you tax the Top 2 for an extra 10% which comes out to $10 more and then put it in a "pot" that will only be spent on the Bottom 2, we have a problem. This is a problem because you are treating 20% of the population unfairly simply because they have more money than the other 80%. This is being charitable with their money and not letting them decide to do with it as they please. I support the poor in my own way by donating money, volunteering for charity, etc. but it is wrong for you to take a larger percent of my money and give it to another group of people for arbitrary reasons. > It would be a calculated number that is used to maximize total utility of the economy. I would love to see the geniuses and God level economists who can make those calculations and factor in every aspect of the economy. You can't, it's impossible.
- 10y ago

empath75 10y ago

Wealth redistribution programs do benefit everyone in that it prevents masses of people from getting desperate enough to murder you and take your stuff.

BigDaddyD 10y ago
Emotional argument not found reality.