4 ms·

There's zero chance our political spectrum will ever increase taxes to allow for UBI to be widespread and sufficient. This way we compensate innovators and ent

There's zero chance our political spectrum will ever increase taxes to allow for UBI to be widespread and sufficient. This way we compensate innovators and entrepreneurs for their work. That is, we give them the leeway to innovate, improve their own income, etc. It's a lot more palatable than 'let's tax everyone at 85%'.

alexc05 10y ago
I think that's a very Ayn Rand / Atlas Shrugged type of analysis. I also think that falls short of accounting for the full spectrum of human behavior. There are numerous innovators, artists and creators who are driven by more than financial rewards. If there was a re-balancing of economic priorities, I'm not sure I agree that 'innovation would stop' (which isn't precisely what you said, so forgive the straw man). On the whole I think you might see different people driving the world forward, but you wouldn't see the world stop. Larry Page tinkered with computers before he knew he was going to be a bajillionaire: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Page. Would Zuckerberg still have created thefacebook? What about all those school-teachers who give everything they have for a $30k salary (and hugs from snotty faced kids)? I may be misreading your point - so forgive me if that's true - but there are a lot of places where BI is making and is moving forward. They're also doing it without the 85% tax rate you're quoting.
sp332 10y ago
I'm not sure what that middle part means. A lot of businesses were started recently that would not have been viable without the ACA. If we expand the safety net, more people can take chances, and there will be more (in absolute numbers) wild successes which can be taxed to fund the safety nets. There's probably diminishing returns somewhere but I don't think we're near it yet.

4 ms·

There's zero chance our political spectrum will ever increase taxes to allow for UBI to be widespread and sufficient. This way we compensate innovators and ent

by esahione 10y ago

alexc05 10y ago
I think that's a very Ayn Rand / Atlas Shrugged type of analysis. I also think that falls short of accounting for the full spectrum of human behavior. There are numerous innovators, artists and creators who are driven by more than financial rewards. If there was a re-balancing of economic priorities, I'm not sure I agree that 'innovation would stop' (which isn't precisely what you said, so forgive the straw man). On the whole I think you might see different people driving the world forward, but you wouldn't see the world stop. Larry Page tinkered with computers before he knew he was going to be a bajillionaire: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Page. Would Zuckerberg still have created thefacebook? What about all those school-teachers who give everything they have for a $30k salary (and hugs from snotty faced kids)? I may be misreading your point - so forgive me if that's true - but there are a lot of places where BI is making and is moving forward. They're also doing it without the 85% tax rate you're quoting.
sp332 10y ago
I'm not sure what that middle part means. A lot of businesses were started recently that would not have been viable without the ACA. If we expand the safety net, more people can take chances, and there will be more (in absolute numbers) wild successes which can be taxed to fund the safety nets. There's probably diminishing returns somewhere but I don't think we're near it yet.