4 ms·

This is a strawman attack. Everyone knows UBI will require an increase in taxes that's fundamentally how the wealth redistribution will work.

greedo 9y ago
Not a strawman at all. Many UBI proponents claim that it's more efficient, by directly paying for services already provided. Then when called on that, they switch to your strawman that "Everyone knows UBI will require an increase in taxes..." Again, good luck trying to raise tax revenue 30% without killing the US economy.
ctdonath 9y ago
My taxes are already pushing oppressive. Raise them further, and I'll seriously consider "going Galt" - cash in my investments, buy real estate & capital equipment outright, and live quite comfortably on $4000/mo ($UBI * family population). You're subsidizing the unproductive, and punishing the productive. I can be productive in untaxable ways.
- billmalarky 9y ago
  >My taxes are already pushing oppressive. Raise them further, and I'll seriously consider "going Galt" Under UBI that would be your prerogative. Most highly productive individuals and all corporations will carry on producing. >You're subsidizing the unproductive, and punishing the productive. You may have moral qualms with a UBI system. You will need to come to terms with these doubts in the midterm future, as UBI will be the only system (we currently know of) capable of sustaining a market economy in a world where automation has displaced the workforce.
  - ctdonath 9y ago
    The same "displace the workforce" arguments abounded during the Industrial Revolution. Most everyone is still employed (biggest impediment isn't lack of jobs per se, it's oppressive regulation making employment of low-productivity people untenable).
  - ctdonath 9y ago
    There does indeed come a point where taxation reaches high enough levels that people (and groups of them a la corporations) lose interest in exerting greater effort. The popular actor Ronald Regan famously noted that he would have produced far more movies, but it just wasn't worth it under the confiscatory tax rates. Most of the time, people will indeed continue producing without such drastic obviousness - but there WILL be a tapering off of productivity, and history makes that clear to those willing to see the objective facts.
    - plusECON 9y ago
      :thinking_face: maybe we need a reverse-graduated income tax i.e. you are taxed less the more productive you become. Then the most productive are super encouraged!? There's definitely some unintended consequences in there... but it might be the start of an idea.
sintaxi 9y ago
It doesn't seem like a strawman to me. The money has to come from somewhere or else mass inflation will happen instantaneously. The number of goods and services that exists is finite. Giving people free money which removes their burden of supplying value to others will not only fatally harm the buying power of the dollar but it will actually reduce the number of goods and services available which will have the opposite affect than intended. UBI will fail spectacularly if implemented at any meaningful scale.

greedo 9y ago

Not a strawman at all. Many UBI proponents claim that it's more efficient, by directly paying for services already provided. Then when called on that, they switch to your strawman that "Everyone knows UBI will require an increase in taxes..." Again, good luck trying to raise tax revenue 30% without killing the US economy.

ctdonath 9y ago

My taxes are already pushing oppressive. Raise them further, and I'll seriously consider "going Galt" - cash in my investments, buy real estate & capital equipment outright, and live quite comfortably on $4000/mo ($UBI * family population). You're subsidizing the unproductive, and punishing the productive. I can be productive in untaxable ways.

billmalarky 9y ago
>My taxes are already pushing oppressive. Raise them further, and I'll seriously consider "going Galt" Under UBI that would be your prerogative. Most highly productive individuals and all corporations will carry on producing. >You're subsidizing the unproductive, and punishing the productive. You may have moral qualms with a UBI system. You will need to come to terms with these doubts in the midterm future, as UBI will be the only system (we currently know of) capable of sustaining a market economy in a world where automation has displaced the workforce.
- ctdonath 9y ago
  The same "displace the workforce" arguments abounded during the Industrial Revolution. Most everyone is still employed (biggest impediment isn't lack of jobs per se, it's oppressive regulation making employment of low-productivity people untenable).
- ctdonath 9y ago
  There does indeed come a point where taxation reaches high enough levels that people (and groups of them a la corporations) lose interest in exerting greater effort. The popular actor Ronald Regan famously noted that he would have produced far more movies, but it just wasn't worth it under the confiscatory tax rates. Most of the time, people will indeed continue producing without such drastic obviousness - but there WILL be a tapering off of productivity, and history makes that clear to those willing to see the objective facts.
  - plusECON 9y ago
    :thinking_face: maybe we need a reverse-graduated income tax i.e. you are taxed less the more productive you become. Then the most productive are super encouraged!? There's definitely some unintended consequences in there... but it might be the start of an idea.

sintaxi 9y ago

It doesn't seem like a strawman to me. The money has to come from somewhere or else mass inflation will happen instantaneously. The number of goods and services that exists is finite. Giving people free money which removes their burden of supplying value to others will not only fatally harm the buying power of the dollar but it will actually reduce the number of goods and services available which will have the opposite affect than intended. UBI will fail spectacularly if implemented at any meaningful scale.