4 ms·

I think the way forward is some sort of basic income, even if that's just 25% of average salaries across the country, so that then the company can employ MORE p

I think the way forward is some sort of basic income, even if that's just 25% of average salaries across the country, so that then the company can employ MORE people, but make them work 25% less, and pay them 25% less making them happier, healthier, and the gov't picks up the bill for the lost 25% income to the worker... It'd also be a good experiment for gbi in general.

sethammons 10y ago
How does the government pick up the bill? They get their money from us via taxes...
- chinathrow 10y ago
  From us employed or from us running companies with profit, yes.
  - late2part 10y ago
    Why should I work, so that others who don't work get my money?
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
      Because it leads to a healthy vibrant society that enables you to make that money in the first place. Your income is a benefit conferred by the society in which you live, so it makes sense to return part of it to enable that society to exist.
      - late2part 10y ago
        Turtles all the way down?
        SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
        Let's imagine that something you want costs 10 hours of work, nominally. What I'm saying is that the real cost is actually 12.5 hours of work: 10 hours to purchase the item and 2.5 hours to enable a system in which you can purchase the item at all. If you're not willing to work the extra 2.5 hours, you're actually externalizing (part of) the cost of your perk -- by not paying part of its manufacturing and delivery cost (ie, the portions of those which rely on society). Arguments against paying taxes while benefitting from societal systems is just arguing you deserve a discount on what you want. Selfish and dishonest accounting.
        late2part 10y ago
        I pay about 60% of my income in taxes. How much more should I pay so you and your friends can live without working? I also donate 10% of my income to the causes I care about. Should I be forced to give that income to the things you think are better than my choices?
        SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
        What makes you think I'm not on the "would have to pay more" side of these issues? That seems uncharitable (and an ad hominem), to assume I'd only hold that view if I were consuming, not paying. Im not saying that there aren't examples of excesses or that deductions for charitable giving aren't a good idea. Just that the view there should be no taxes or that it's somehow your money being taken away are both mistaken (and fundamentally rely on the notion you should be allowed to externalize costs).
        late2part 10y ago
        I really don't care what side you're actually on, I care about what side you're espousing. I want to understand why you want to force me to pay for people that don't want to work? As to your point: "the view there should be no taxes" I think killing puppies is bad. That has about as much relevance to the discussion as your comment does. Your comment "it's somehow your money being taken away [is] mistaken" is simply specious and illogical. You want my government, which gains money through taxation, to provide for people who don't want to work. Are you suggesting I wouldn't pay more to support your program that gives money to people who don't want to work?
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- gremlinsinc 10y ago
  They're going to tax us no matter what, why not put it to good use instead of spend 50 million on a better toilet, or a pork project in their home district?
  - luck_fenovo 10y ago
    Let's talk USA. About 320,000,000 citizens (presumably basic income is for everyone). Let's assume $150 a week (it being $15/hr for 1/4 of an optimistic work week). That gives us 48 billion dollars that have to come from cutting existing spending in your scenario. Cutting your better toilet gets us about a tenth of a percent to this week's goal! You're not going to have basic income without raising taxes a huge amount. Current tax revenue per year is about $2 trillion, which covers about 2/3 of the current federal budget. If you decided to cut all that spending and spread it equally among the population would be like 6 grand a year, not nearly enough to live on.
    - chinathrow 10y ago
      > That gives us 48 billion dollars that have to come from cutting existing spending in your scenario. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_... US: 596.0B Target easily reachable.
      - luck_fenovo 10y ago
        48 billion dollars. Per week. So, yes, if we decided not to have a military at all, we could meet the basic income requirements for about 3 months.

sethammons 10y ago

How does the government pick up the bill? They get their money from us via taxes...

chinathrow 10y ago
From us employed or from us running companies with profit, yes.
- late2part 10y ago
  Why should I work, so that others who don't work get my money?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
    Because it leads to a healthy vibrant society that enables you to make that money in the first place. Your income is a benefit conferred by the society in which you live, so it makes sense to return part of it to enable that society to exist.
    - late2part 10y ago
      Turtles all the way down?
      - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
        Let's imagine that something you want costs 10 hours of work, nominally. What I'm saying is that the real cost is actually 12.5 hours of work: 10 hours to purchase the item and 2.5 hours to enable a system in which you can purchase the item at all. If you're not willing to work the extra 2.5 hours, you're actually externalizing (part of) the cost of your perk -- by not paying part of its manufacturing and delivery cost (ie, the portions of those which rely on society). Arguments against paying taxes while benefitting from societal systems is just arguing you deserve a discount on what you want. Selfish and dishonest accounting.
        late2part 10y ago
        I pay about 60% of my income in taxes. How much more should I pay so you and your friends can live without working? I also donate 10% of my income to the causes I care about. Should I be forced to give that income to the things you think are better than my choices?
        SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
        What makes you think I'm not on the "would have to pay more" side of these issues? That seems uncharitable (and an ad hominem), to assume I'd only hold that view if I were consuming, not paying. Im not saying that there aren't examples of excesses or that deductions for charitable giving aren't a good idea. Just that the view there should be no taxes or that it's somehow your money being taken away are both mistaken (and fundamentally rely on the notion you should be allowed to externalize costs).
        late2part 10y ago
        I really don't care what side you're actually on, I care about what side you're espousing. I want to understand why you want to force me to pay for people that don't want to work? As to your point: "the view there should be no taxes" I think killing puppies is bad. That has about as much relevance to the discussion as your comment does. Your comment "it's somehow your money being taken away [is] mistaken" is simply specious and illogical. You want my government, which gains money through taxation, to provide for people who don't want to work. Are you suggesting I wouldn't pay more to support your program that gives money to people who don't want to work?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
gremlinsinc 10y ago
They're going to tax us no matter what, why not put it to good use instead of spend 50 million on a better toilet, or a pork project in their home district?
- luck_fenovo 10y ago
  Let's talk USA. About 320,000,000 citizens (presumably basic income is for everyone). Let's assume $150 a week (it being $15/hr for 1/4 of an optimistic work week). That gives us 48 billion dollars that have to come from cutting existing spending in your scenario. Cutting your better toilet gets us about a tenth of a percent to this week's goal! You're not going to have basic income without raising taxes a huge amount. Current tax revenue per year is about $2 trillion, which covers about 2/3 of the current federal budget. If you decided to cut all that spending and spread it equally among the population would be like 6 grand a year, not nearly enough to live on.
  - chinathrow 10y ago
    > That gives us 48 billion dollars that have to come from cutting existing spending in your scenario. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_... US: 596.0B Target easily reachable.
    - luck_fenovo 10y ago
      48 billion dollars. Per week. So, yes, if we decided not to have a military at all, we could meet the basic income requirements for about 3 months.