11 ms·

There is no one to entrust UBI to. It will rapidly stop being universal or basic as people pervert it with exceptions. Controlling everyone's income will attrac

There is no one to entrust UBI to. It will rapidly stop being universal or basic as people pervert it with exceptions. Controlling everyone's income will attract the greatest power mongers the world has ever seen. Perhaps the unspoken honest answer is that people without other assets are going to live in 'poverty' (compared to the rich); their brains will operate at better watts-per-compute than the computers for a long time and still be worth something. They will earn a living on this. The people that do have assets (e.g. own the robots), are going to be extravagantly wealthy. It will be a feudalism but without violence, seniorage, or other expectation that the poor work for the good to the rich. Just that there's going to be really poor and really rich. I and my kids will almost certainly be left behind in this. I am not an asset owner. But I will not attack my neighbor for their wealth. I will not turn over my ability to live to some bureaucrat who steals it from the rich and will eventually make me dance and beg for it. Let the rich asset owners go to the stars even if I will not be joining them. Better to have some of us get ahead than hold all back trying to leave no one behind.

nickgrosvenor 10y ago
Your predictions are at least 50 years too soon, and several unknowable things will occur between here and there
- DickingAround 10y ago
  Agreed. But if I have to show some world given the current trajectory, that's my best bet.
  - nickgrosvenor 10y ago
    My favorite story is Steven Spielberg's Minority Report. He got the best futurists money can buy to predict what the near future would be. They had all sorts of strange interfaces and ideas. Newspapers with screens on them, etc. It was just 3 years before the iPhone came out...
kefka 10y ago
Who else to entrust UBI to than not-humans? We're talking of robots getting us in this mess, along with extreme automation of everything. Well, lets start looking into automating government. We have a lot of cruft and crap in our governmental system. Layers upon layers of laws, bureaucrats deciding on felonies. And it's even worse, where we really don't know the boundary of the law. And even less so if you're rich. So, what would it take to automate law itself?I'm not talking of the judicial, but executive and legislative seems simpler to target for excision and replacement.
- DickingAround 10y ago
  I could imagine a world where totally sentient robots keep us tamed with UBI. I might be willing to buy off on that, need to think about it more (morally it checks out since the robots own the wealth and voluntarily give is up to be nice to their creator species). Just not human run UBI or even UBI where humans run the robots that do it.
  - kefka 10y ago
    I was thinking something a bit more complete than just that. I was thinking of a government itself that was automated, by the people and for the people. Taxes and expenditures could be drilled down to an arbitrary fine level. Laws themselves could come from the public as well as something similar to our current congress. However, I'm thinking of running proposed laws through a form of a simulator before being wide-spread. Think of it like Jenkins-For-Law. It wouldn't catch everything, but would find egregious side-effects. Laws with too many side-effects would be denied, without some sort of super-majority. The law itself would be a provable, queryable corpus. There would be no confusion about "Is this legal". Side-effects would be found by lack of correlation and fuzzy definitions. Obviously, this wouldn't be our government. Or it would require a stark discussion between all 50 states at a Constitutional Convention (yeah, good luck). I like the idea how Estonia is going about E-Government. I can dream, I guess.
esahione 10y ago
Here's the thing that you haven't taken into account with your post: rejuvenation research. Let's say we discover/invent AI. What do we set it to do? We solve the world's biggest problem and create the biggest company ever: conquer aging. Do you think you'd stay on the sidelines if a rich guy could buy immortality and you couldn't?
- DickingAround 10y ago
  Yes. Even if I was starving, I want to believe I could not steal from my neighbor (morals). And not sell my kids into state-slavery (the ability to take in trillions of income from some and outlay it to others is the ultimate power and it will ultimately corrupt anyone who tries to own it or live on it).
  - esahione 10y ago
    Revolution without bloodshed is next to impossible, sadly. Rejuvenation? AI? Those are the biggest revolution-causing triggers humans will ever come to see.
    - LoonyBalloony 10y ago
      Elections were (IMO) meant to be bloodless revolutions. its just the 1% has captured both primary political parties. Also, the flawed first past the post electoral system discourages competition (IMO to keep it cheaper for the 1% to own the whole process). I'll post some videos from people smarter then me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Erph1L_XwVQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Erph1L_XwVQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3GFG0sXIig https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3GFG0sXIig https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0I-sdoSXU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0I-sdoSXU
  - chillwaves 10y ago
    Taxes are "state-slavery"?
guelo 10y ago
Social Security is an example of a welfare that has run fine without politicians making anyone dance and beg for it. I don't think a lot of other people are going to be fine living in permanent poverty and feudalism while seeing extravagant wealth nearby. A revolution is coming, Trump's promise of making America great again by kicking out Mexicans and restricting trade is just the first salvo in the revolution. It's not going to be pretty but it could have been different if the wealth had been redistributed fairly.
- CapitalistCartr 10y ago
  Social Security has one of the most powerful lobbies in the country defending it. Politicians who eagerly take on the NRA won't even mention cutting SS.
  - skybrian 10y ago
    It seems likely that basic income would have a similar lobby, once it's been around for a while.
  - tornadoboy55 10y ago
    That's primarily because gun bans or gun control are a net benefit whilst letting your poor and old starve is a net negative.
    - jimmywanger 10y ago
      > because gun bans or gun control are a net benefit. If you really believe that, compare/contrast most dictatorships with the United States, Switzerland, and Israel. Gun control is something that oppressive rulers always try to implement as soon as possible.
      - doubleplusgood 10y ago
        Gun control in Israel is pretty strict for civilians but you make a good point.
tim333 10y ago
If you have human level AI, in democracies the people would likely vote in a government to sort out something UBI. At the moment UBI would have a job working because paying people for their work is still how things work.
badsock 10y ago
I think Norway and the way it's managed its sovereign wealth fund is a counter-example. Governance can be done well.
- dv_dt 10y ago
  I've wondered for a while if size invites corruption. The more governmental functions are removed from the public eye, the more easily corruption can creep in. If this is true, then smaller nations (and smaller companies) which have less scale would tend to be better run.
  - purple-again 10y ago
    Aye, but as a counter point remember there is safety in numbers. What's Norway going to do when a five million man army comes marching for its riches? Pray for help from allies or die screaming. Such has been the history of humanity from first recording through the invention of the atomic bomb.
    - nickjarboe 10y ago
      Countries with atomic weapons have never invaded another country with atomic weapons. This is a great improvement over WWI and WWII, although it is hard to know what the long tail risk is of killing almost everybody with a full scale nuclear exchange and nuclear winter. I think maybe the best situation would be that each responsible (to be determined) country would be allowed 10-30 nukes on ICBMs only (verified somehow; live cameras plus inspections?). With nukes on ICBMs only there would be no sneak attack where the attacker is unknown. With a small number of nukes, deterrence is still likely and the possibility of a nuclear winter is eliminated. I'd trust Norway with a small nuclear arsenal.
      - nradov 10y ago
        That's not completely correct. During the 1999 Kargil War either Pakistan invaded India or vice versa (depending on where you believe the legitimate border lies). Both countries had atomic weapons as of 1998. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War
drzaiusapelord 10y ago
> as people pervert it with exceptions As a once landlord, even if government did a great job with it, I don't see why rents wouldn't go up to match it. If my tenants were guaranteed 50k a year, I would instantly raise my rent to 1/3rd that. Other industries would follow. Market rates really just hash out to be whatever the consumer can bear before going bankrupt. So the government would also need a Communist-level of price controls, which as history has shown us, doesn't actually work. The welfare system today 'works' because so few are on welfare or fully dependant on welfare, so a more market economy exists with rental pricing. If everyone, or most, are on welfare, then we'll just price against welfare. That means you'll get your UBI check but you'll be living in flophouses and be broke every month for basic things when before you had a nice middle-class house, savings, enjoyable lifestyles, upward mobility, etc. I have yet to see UBI advocates resolve the inflationary problem short of re-implementing Soviet-style communism, yet they are unable to resolve the various problems with communism the same way the Soviets and others were unable to do so in the past.
- dv_dt 10y ago
  Why does it matter if the income comes from a basic income source or not? Rents rise only if there is more demand than supply. And it seems silly to say that we are not capable of supplying enough housing for our current population. In nations were economic equality is higher, and where government's provide a strong safety net, there is no indication of rents spiralling out of control.
  - drzaiusapelord 10y ago
    Safety net is not UBI. Safety net expects a working class and a market economy. UBI expects non-workers wholly dependant on the government with set, public incomes. Supply doesn't matter. The land owning class, me, gives no shit about supply. We'll all just raise rates to match what the government gives. Why wouldn't we? This is exactly what happens with any government entitlement. Medicare covers mobility scooters up to $5000. Guess what? My $2500 scooter now costs $5000. My competitors will do the same. Then in a day that becomes the new norm. That's only one problem with UBI. The others are worse like in a generation you have people who have no useful skills, so once those robots running everything aren't competitive with robots from market economies that don't do UBI and expect people to work and be competitive and find innovations, then our goods are too expensive and our economy collapses because we all decided to model ourselves after a retirement arts community. Not to mention that history has shown that if you give people enough cash to just get by, they tend to lean towards a leisure lifestyle of drug abuse, gambling, non-education, non-productivity, etc. Why not? If no worries, then you might as well party. People in the ghetto aren't any different than you and me. They just realized that a lifetime of welfare means a lifetime of leisure, so they adapt to a leisure lifestyle and deal with all the problems that brings. Lastly, robots aren't magically going to remain competitive by themselves. Industries won't magically take care of themselves. Even with heavy automation you still need people coming in day in and day out to make sure we don't fall behind the curve. If a Chinese robot can make 100 dresses in 5 minutes and ours can only make 50, then suddenly we're in a lot of trouble as our per item cost has literally doubled. If anything, the tech arms race is heavily accelerated because the stakes are so much higher. We'd probably have record levels of employment and education to just keep up.
mrfusion 10y ago
Social security is basic income and no one has perverted it ecessively.
- sithadmin 10y ago
  US Social Security is not 'basic income' - it's a system that pays out variable payouts (based on an individual's lifetime system contributions) to a select group of persons (62+ years old, depends on birth year), and is supported primarily by contributions from members that have not aged into the payout cohort yet. It's far closer to a pension fund than any kind of universal basic income system.
RobertoG 10y ago
"Controlling everyone's income will attract the greatest power mongers the world has ever seen." Well, maybe this is our chance of create trustworthy AI politicians (only half-joking).
ZeroGravitas 10y ago
I'm sure I read a sci-fi short story that examined this idea, where Australia shared the wealth with everyone but America basically put everyone into concentration camps. Ah, here it is: http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm
- gpawl 10y ago
  Spoiler alert. I think the presentation of "Australia" in that story isn't quite as you describe it. There is another interpretation.
mooreds 10y ago
See also https://islandpress.org/book/who-owns-the-sky https://islandpress.org/book/who-owns-the-sky for another alternative.
afpx 10y ago
I generally try not to get political online; I don't find it very effective (e.g. how many people's opinions have really changed based on their online readings?) However, in this case, I do want to provide a couple contrarian viewpoints. One, I am an 'asset owner', and the rent problem is real. Once one reaches a certain threshold of wealth, it becomes almost obnoxious how quickly it grows beyond one's consumption. For instance, I reached the modest 'few million' threshold several years ago, and I have some financial managers. I don't often look at my bank accounts. But, when I do, I am always shocked by how much my net-worth has grown. And, that's after trying to be generous to friends and family (i.e. $10k here, $20k there). Two, I don't find taxation to be theft. In fact, I pay so little in tax based on what I earn from capital gains, that I never even think about it. And, I'm often surprised that some of my 'average-income' friends are so vehemently ideological about it. But, more to the point, I look at taxation similar to a lease. For instance, I can go rent some capital equipment and use it to build some ROI. And, afterward I pay the owner for the opportunity. I don't think that is theft, so why would I view tax any differently? Or in other words, how would I have been able to profit as much had I lived somewhere else with much less 'social capital'? That isn't to say that I find government efficient or non-corrupt, but those are just the kinks in the system that will always need to be worked out. I don't expect to change any opinions here. I don't even know if anyone reads this shit. But, I just wanted to point these things out for people who haven't yet formed their ideology.
- ericd 10y ago
  Agreed on all points. I would like my tax rate to increase. The marginal utility of dollars is drastically lower past a certain point, and could be better used on public works. I think the biggest boost in life quality would be being surrounded by a happier citizenry.
  - humanrebar 10y ago
    So be more generous with relevant charities while you wait for your taxes to go up. Nothing's stopping people from being more generous.
    - 10y ago
gpawl 10y ago
The weirdest part of your comment is that you have seething disregard for anything resembling socialism, yet you accept without question the synthetic notion of "asset ownership"
Florin_Andrei 10y ago
Nothing will work unless we do a complete remodel to all our assumptions about money, society, a person's worth, etc. We need to take a big sledgehammer to all our old ideas, and the time to do it is now. It's an entirely new world ahead of us. The changes will be tremendous, unprecedented in history in a literal sense. Now is not the time to be ideologically lazy.
yaur 10y ago
I think it's naive to assume the "without violence" part
xbmcuser 10y ago
The world economy will crash if we don't have universal basic income in the future as simply put the owners of robots will need humans to buy the products and services produced. Socialist economies will prosper and with current barriers coming up on world trade etc. Purely capitalistic economies will be hurt the most as with ai and robots capital will accelerate towards the few. In the end the many wont have anything to give to the few. This is just hypothetical I think long before that you will see huge social unrest and civil war a smidgen of which you are seeing in the US and is one of the main reason Trump got elected. Sadly he is someone that will accelerate this instead of stopping it

nickgrosvenor 10y ago

Your predictions are at least 50 years too soon, and several unknowable things will occur between here and there

DickingAround 10y ago
Agreed. But if I have to show some world given the current trajectory, that's my best bet.
- nickgrosvenor 10y ago
  My favorite story is Steven Spielberg's Minority Report. He got the best futurists money can buy to predict what the near future would be. They had all sorts of strange interfaces and ideas. Newspapers with screens on them, etc. It was just 3 years before the iPhone came out...

kefka 10y ago

Who else to entrust UBI to than not-humans? We're talking of robots getting us in this mess, along with extreme automation of everything. Well, lets start looking into automating government. We have a lot of cruft and crap in our governmental system. Layers upon layers of laws, bureaucrats deciding on felonies. And it's even worse, where we really don't know the boundary of the law. And even less so if you're rich. So, what would it take to automate law itself?I'm not talking of the judicial, but executive and legislative seems simpler to target for excision and replacement.

DickingAround 10y ago
I could imagine a world where totally sentient robots keep us tamed with UBI. I might be willing to buy off on that, need to think about it more (morally it checks out since the robots own the wealth and voluntarily give is up to be nice to their creator species). Just not human run UBI or even UBI where humans run the robots that do it.
- kefka 10y ago
  I was thinking something a bit more complete than just that. I was thinking of a government itself that was automated, by the people and for the people. Taxes and expenditures could be drilled down to an arbitrary fine level. Laws themselves could come from the public as well as something similar to our current congress. However, I'm thinking of running proposed laws through a form of a simulator before being wide-spread. Think of it like Jenkins-For-Law. It wouldn't catch everything, but would find egregious side-effects. Laws with too many side-effects would be denied, without some sort of super-majority. The law itself would be a provable, queryable corpus. There would be no confusion about "Is this legal". Side-effects would be found by lack of correlation and fuzzy definitions. Obviously, this wouldn't be our government. Or it would require a stark discussion between all 50 states at a Constitutional Convention (yeah, good luck). I like the idea how Estonia is going about E-Government. I can dream, I guess.

esahione 10y ago

Here's the thing that you haven't taken into account with your post: rejuvenation research. Let's say we discover/invent AI. What do we set it to do? We solve the world's biggest problem and create the biggest company ever: conquer aging. Do you think you'd stay on the sidelines if a rich guy could buy immortality and you couldn't?

DickingAround 10y ago
Yes. Even if I was starving, I want to believe I could not steal from my neighbor (morals). And not sell my kids into state-slavery (the ability to take in trillions of income from some and outlay it to others is the ultimate power and it will ultimately corrupt anyone who tries to own it or live on it).
- esahione 10y ago
  Revolution without bloodshed is next to impossible, sadly. Rejuvenation? AI? Those are the biggest revolution-causing triggers humans will ever come to see.
  - LoonyBalloony 10y ago
    Elections were (IMO) meant to be bloodless revolutions. its just the 1% has captured both primary political parties. Also, the flawed first past the post electoral system discourages competition (IMO to keep it cheaper for the 1% to own the whole process). I'll post some videos from people smarter then me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Erph1L_XwVQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Erph1L_XwVQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3GFG0sXIig https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3GFG0sXIig https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0I-sdoSXU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0I-sdoSXU
- chillwaves 10y ago
  Taxes are "state-slavery"?

guelo 10y ago

Social Security is an example of a welfare that has run fine without politicians making anyone dance and beg for it. I don't think a lot of other people are going to be fine living in permanent poverty and feudalism while seeing extravagant wealth nearby. A revolution is coming, Trump's promise of making America great again by kicking out Mexicans and restricting trade is just the first salvo in the revolution. It's not going to be pretty but it could have been different if the wealth had been redistributed fairly.

CapitalistCartr 10y ago
Social Security has one of the most powerful lobbies in the country defending it. Politicians who eagerly take on the NRA won't even mention cutting SS.
- skybrian 10y ago
  It seems likely that basic income would have a similar lobby, once it's been around for a while.
- tornadoboy55 10y ago
  That's primarily because gun bans or gun control are a net benefit whilst letting your poor and old starve is a net negative.
  - jimmywanger 10y ago
    > because gun bans or gun control are a net benefit. If you really believe that, compare/contrast most dictatorships with the United States, Switzerland, and Israel. Gun control is something that oppressive rulers always try to implement as soon as possible.
    - doubleplusgood 10y ago
      Gun control in Israel is pretty strict for civilians but you make a good point.

tim333 10y ago

If you have human level AI, in democracies the people would likely vote in a government to sort out something UBI. At the moment UBI would have a job working because paying people for their work is still how things work.

badsock 10y ago

I think Norway and the way it's managed its sovereign wealth fund is a counter-example. Governance can be done well.

dv_dt 10y ago
I've wondered for a while if size invites corruption. The more governmental functions are removed from the public eye, the more easily corruption can creep in. If this is true, then smaller nations (and smaller companies) which have less scale would tend to be better run.
- purple-again 10y ago
  Aye, but as a counter point remember there is safety in numbers. What's Norway going to do when a five million man army comes marching for its riches? Pray for help from allies or die screaming. Such has been the history of humanity from first recording through the invention of the atomic bomb.
  - nickjarboe 10y ago
    Countries with atomic weapons have never invaded another country with atomic weapons. This is a great improvement over WWI and WWII, although it is hard to know what the long tail risk is of killing almost everybody with a full scale nuclear exchange and nuclear winter. I think maybe the best situation would be that each responsible (to be determined) country would be allowed 10-30 nukes on ICBMs only (verified somehow; live cameras plus inspections?). With nukes on ICBMs only there would be no sneak attack where the attacker is unknown. With a small number of nukes, deterrence is still likely and the possibility of a nuclear winter is eliminated. I'd trust Norway with a small nuclear arsenal.
    - nradov 10y ago
      That's not completely correct. During the 1999 Kargil War either Pakistan invaded India or vice versa (depending on where you believe the legitimate border lies). Both countries had atomic weapons as of 1998. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War

drzaiusapelord 10y ago

> as people pervert it with exceptions As a once landlord, even if government did a great job with it, I don't see why rents wouldn't go up to match it. If my tenants were guaranteed 50k a year, I would instantly raise my rent to 1/3rd that. Other industries would follow. Market rates really just hash out to be whatever the consumer can bear before going bankrupt. So the government would also need a Communist-level of price controls, which as history has shown us, doesn't actually work. The welfare system today 'works' because so few are on welfare or fully dependant on welfare, so a more market economy exists with rental pricing. If everyone, or most, are on welfare, then we'll just price against welfare. That means you'll get your UBI check but you'll be living in flophouses and be broke every month for basic things when before you had a nice middle-class house, savings, enjoyable lifestyles, upward mobility, etc. I have yet to see UBI advocates resolve the inflationary problem short of re-implementing Soviet-style communism, yet they are unable to resolve the various problems with communism the same way the Soviets and others were unable to do so in the past.

dv_dt 10y ago
Why does it matter if the income comes from a basic income source or not? Rents rise only if there is more demand than supply. And it seems silly to say that we are not capable of supplying enough housing for our current population. In nations were economic equality is higher, and where government's provide a strong safety net, there is no indication of rents spiralling out of control.
- drzaiusapelord 10y ago
  Safety net is not UBI. Safety net expects a working class and a market economy. UBI expects non-workers wholly dependant on the government with set, public incomes. Supply doesn't matter. The land owning class, me, gives no shit about supply. We'll all just raise rates to match what the government gives. Why wouldn't we? This is exactly what happens with any government entitlement. Medicare covers mobility scooters up to $5000. Guess what? My $2500 scooter now costs $5000. My competitors will do the same. Then in a day that becomes the new norm. That's only one problem with UBI. The others are worse like in a generation you have people who have no useful skills, so once those robots running everything aren't competitive with robots from market economies that don't do UBI and expect people to work and be competitive and find innovations, then our goods are too expensive and our economy collapses because we all decided to model ourselves after a retirement arts community. Not to mention that history has shown that if you give people enough cash to just get by, they tend to lean towards a leisure lifestyle of drug abuse, gambling, non-education, non-productivity, etc. Why not? If no worries, then you might as well party. People in the ghetto aren't any different than you and me. They just realized that a lifetime of welfare means a lifetime of leisure, so they adapt to a leisure lifestyle and deal with all the problems that brings. Lastly, robots aren't magically going to remain competitive by themselves. Industries won't magically take care of themselves. Even with heavy automation you still need people coming in day in and day out to make sure we don't fall behind the curve. If a Chinese robot can make 100 dresses in 5 minutes and ours can only make 50, then suddenly we're in a lot of trouble as our per item cost has literally doubled. If anything, the tech arms race is heavily accelerated because the stakes are so much higher. We'd probably have record levels of employment and education to just keep up.

mrfusion 10y ago

Social security is basic income and no one has perverted it ecessively.

sithadmin 10y ago
US Social Security is not 'basic income' - it's a system that pays out variable payouts (based on an individual's lifetime system contributions) to a select group of persons (62+ years old, depends on birth year), and is supported primarily by contributions from members that have not aged into the payout cohort yet. It's far closer to a pension fund than any kind of universal basic income system.

RobertoG 10y ago

"Controlling everyone's income will attract the greatest power mongers the world has ever seen." Well, maybe this is our chance of create trustworthy AI politicians (only half-joking).

ZeroGravitas 10y ago

I'm sure I read a sci-fi short story that examined this idea, where Australia shared the wealth with everyone but America basically put everyone into concentration camps. Ah, here it is: http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

gpawl 10y ago
Spoiler alert. I think the presentation of "Australia" in that story isn't quite as you describe it. There is another interpretation.

mooreds 10y ago

See also https://islandpress.org/book/who-owns-the-sky https://islandpress.org/book/who-owns-the-sky for another alternative.

afpx 10y ago

I generally try not to get political online; I don't find it very effective (e.g. how many people's opinions have really changed based on their online readings?) However, in this case, I do want to provide a couple contrarian viewpoints. One, I am an 'asset owner', and the rent problem is real. Once one reaches a certain threshold of wealth, it becomes almost obnoxious how quickly it grows beyond one's consumption. For instance, I reached the modest 'few million' threshold several years ago, and I have some financial managers. I don't often look at my bank accounts. But, when I do, I am always shocked by how much my net-worth has grown. And, that's after trying to be generous to friends and family (i.e. $10k here, $20k there). Two, I don't find taxation to be theft. In fact, I pay so little in tax based on what I earn from capital gains, that I never even think about it. And, I'm often surprised that some of my 'average-income' friends are so vehemently ideological about it. But, more to the point, I look at taxation similar to a lease. For instance, I can go rent some capital equipment and use it to build some ROI. And, afterward I pay the owner for the opportunity. I don't think that is theft, so why would I view tax any differently? Or in other words, how would I have been able to profit as much had I lived somewhere else with much less 'social capital'? That isn't to say that I find government efficient or non-corrupt, but those are just the kinks in the system that will always need to be worked out. I don't expect to change any opinions here. I don't even know if anyone reads this shit. But, I just wanted to point these things out for people who haven't yet formed their ideology.

ericd 10y ago
Agreed on all points. I would like my tax rate to increase. The marginal utility of dollars is drastically lower past a certain point, and could be better used on public works. I think the biggest boost in life quality would be being surrounded by a happier citizenry.
- humanrebar 10y ago
  So be more generous with relevant charities while you wait for your taxes to go up. Nothing's stopping people from being more generous.
  - 10y ago

gpawl 10y ago

The weirdest part of your comment is that you have seething disregard for anything resembling socialism, yet you accept without question the synthetic notion of "asset ownership"

Florin_Andrei 10y ago

Nothing will work unless we do a complete remodel to all our assumptions about money, society, a person's worth, etc. We need to take a big sledgehammer to all our old ideas, and the time to do it is now. It's an entirely new world ahead of us. The changes will be tremendous, unprecedented in history in a literal sense. Now is not the time to be ideologically lazy.

yaur 10y ago

I think it's naive to assume the "without violence" part

xbmcuser 10y ago

The world economy will crash if we don't have universal basic income in the future as simply put the owners of robots will need humans to buy the products and services produced. Socialist economies will prosper and with current barriers coming up on world trade etc. Purely capitalistic economies will be hurt the most as with ai and robots capital will accelerate towards the few. In the end the many wont have anything to give to the few. This is just hypothetical I think long before that you will see huge social unrest and civil war a smidgen of which you are seeing in the US and is one of the main reason Trump got elected. Sadly he is someone that will accelerate this instead of stopping it