6 ms·

I feel like this basic income ideology is really rooted in laziness - like, everyone likes free things, right? You don't have to work for it? But - do we ever

by mmjaa 9y ago

I feel like this basic income ideology is really rooted in laziness - like, everyone likes free things, right? You don't have to work for it? But - do we ever really ask where that money is coming from? The rich just give it? So then, why would I work hard to become rich, if its just going to be taken from me? Its like income tax. Everyone loves paying tax on their income, right? (I, personally, do not.). So why don't we switch to taxing spending, instead? I'd much rather see the income tax abolished before any UBI fantasy ...

tw1010 9y ago
That might be part of it. But things are rarely that simple. Another big argument is to act as a safety net allowing people to take bigger risks, like starting a startup.
PoachedSausage 9y ago
Technology itself is rooted in laziness. I'm too lazy to wash my clothes and dishes so I have robotic washing boxes do it for me. The protestant work ethic has no place in the 21st century, so lets drop it.
ChrisSD 9y ago
Taxing spending tends to be regressive. Rich people end up paying less tax as a proportion of their income while the poor end up paying more. It is however less visible. Income tax is at least upfront about how much is taken whereas tax on spending is spread out and often invisible unless you're actively thinking about it. Sure you can make people happier about taxation by making it less visible but I'm not sure that's a good argument for it.
- Simon_says 9y ago
  I never really understood the argument that taxing spending taxes rich people a lower proportion of their income. Even allowing for investments and savings, rich and poor are all going to spend the money they have in their life (ignore or tax the estates). If there’s a 10% sales tax, then 9.0909...% of your wealth will go to it, no matter how much you make, invest, save.
  - pedrocr 9y ago
    >rich and poor are all going to spend the money they have in their life (ignore or tax the estates). This is a spherical cow in a vaccum style argument. If you ignore estates and also ignore property and other investments that don't pay sales tax then yes, everyone pays the same sales tax. But the rich will disproportionally own investments and properties that will then be passed on to their heirs. Over any period and particarly over a few generations because of compounding this means taxing spending is indeed very regressive.
    - Simon_says 9y ago
      Sure, rich people will invest, and then get (hopefully more) money back and then spend it, subjecting it to same sales tax. And the tax on estates is higher than sales tax (over $5MM), so that’s hardly a dodge. I still really don’t understand the argument, and I still sort of suspect that it’s fallacious, though I’d enjoy being proven wrong. It seems to me that given a sales tax, a flat and identical percentage of every individual’s spending will go to the sales tax. If a person is “rich” but it doesn’t translate into spending or their estate, then what does that mean?
      - pedrocr 9y ago
        You're just restating the same mathematical impossibility. Compounding means that since you only pay sales tax at consumption rich people will pay much less as they will invest before the tax and have gains on all that pre-tax money. Estate tax is also definitely not higher than sales tax pretty much anywhere in the world. In the US in particular estate tax is only paid on very large estates which excludes almost everyone that matters for this calculation. For the purpose of this calculation estate tax is 0.
        Simon_says 9y ago
        Yea, you caught me. I repeated the same argument because I think it works. And I don't see how your argument addresses it. In particular, this sentence: > Compounding means that since you only pay sales tax at consumption rich people will pay much less as they will invest before the tax and have gains on all that pre-tax money. doesn't really make much sense. Of course investments are pre-sales tax. The sales tax applies after the investments are liquidated to cash and the cash is used to purchase stuff. Let's say our hypothetical person is "rich", but it doesn't translate into extra consumption spending, then what's the point of being rich? It's not like he's getting anything out of it. You do have a point about estate taxes not affecting the majority of people, but estate taxes do affect estates with value greater than $5MM, and I'm working with the assumption that you and I are discussing "rich" people. The marginal estate tax in the U.S. ranges from 18% to 40%, which is higher than any sales tax.
nkohari 9y ago
The problem is that sales tax is an extremely regressive model. If two people buy $100 of goods, but one makes an income of $100K a year and the other $20K, the taxes are effectively 5X higher for the person making less money. No one likes paying any taxes, but at least income tax aligns the motivations of the individual with those of the government. If you make more money, you prosper, and so the government -- which ostensibly creates a society that helps you to prosper.
- Simon_says 9y ago
  Because the guy who makes 5 times more will spend 5 times more?
  - nkohari 9y ago
    In practice, that isn't remotely true. People on the lower end of the income scale (are forced to) spend a much larger percentage of their income in order to meet their basic needs. People on the higher end of the scale spend more on a dollar-by-dollar basis, but a much smaller percentage of their income. Then they save and invest the rest, which also creates more wealth from their existing wealth.
    - Simon_says 9y ago
      When they save and invest, what do you think happens to that investment eventually? It's converted back into cash and spent, donated, or bequeathed. The fact that there's an intermediate step of investment is irrelevant to the fact that lifetime ingress of value equals lifetime egress of value.
      - nkohari 9y ago
        I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make any sense at all. All capital is not eventually spent; otherwise there would be no such thing as generational wealth. Technically speaking, I guess maybe over the course of the rise and fall of a society what you're saying is true, but I don't think the government would want to wait that long to see some tax revenue.
flotillo 9y ago
> So then, why would I work hard to become rich Why do you think that working hard will make you rich? For the vast majority of people, this isn't the case at all. Let's not revere the rich. Most of them acquired their wealth through a mixture of luck, unethical behaviour, and corruption.
- mmjaa 9y ago
  No, this is incorrect, and you are clearly inexperienced on the subject of being poor, or rich. Perhaps somewhere in between? I started off poor. I worked very hard. I'm much richer now as a result of it. Nobody will ever take that away from me.
  - flotillo 9y ago
    Your experience is not universal, and you are lucky that your work resulted in you becoming considerably richer.
    - mmjaa 9y ago
      >the vast majority of people The vast majority of the rich people I know started out poor. I believe this is the case for the majority of the wealthy in the western world too.
devdad 9y ago
Comparing it with laziness is not far away from saying poor people are lazy. Laziness has nothing to do with it. More often than not, such claims are often connected with not seeing hidden privilege as a competitive advantage. Of all of my successful friends, only one come from a socioeconomic environment that isn't middle class or above. The ability to climb on the socioeconomic ladder is much harder for those without means and connections - these means and connections are almost always directly correlated to your family. As a personal anecdote, all of my kids friends have parents which are able to support them financially and are able to work 40-hour weeks. They are all academics and their kids get the benefit from having the language and mindset of academics from an early age. At the same time, my cousin is a couple of steps down on the same ladder. Her kids friends parents are working part time, often several jobs, and still have a hard time making ends meet. My kids are according to studies (on phone so won't be able to reference - an easy Google away) more likely to achieve economic success, go to college and have a better chance ending up one step up on the ladder. Her kids are more likely to end up in crime, less likely to go to college, more likely to stay in the same socioeconomic class. I'm pretty sure my work gives me more slack and ability to be able to be lazy than the part time factory worker. "Free money" would probably create more equality and a better chance for all kids. Your statement is shortsighted.
- Simon_says 9y ago
  In my opinion, informed by what I’ve witnessed personally amongst my peers, poor people are lazier, at least in a statistical, group-average sort of way. This isn’t meant to contradict anything you say about privilege or economic status of parents. In fact kids learn that hard work and contentiousness pay off from their role models, parents, and peers. So successful parents end up having successful kids, and the phenomenon is not explained fully by Dad’s connections. Saying it’s “privilege” is only the beginning of understanding. There are some aspects of personality that parents are imparting to kids, and if you’re interested in helping the rest of the kids, you have to understand what that is.
madez 9y ago
You assume rich people worked hard. I've seen rich people with baby soft hands that never worked hard. And I've seen dirt poor people with a broken body because of all the work. It's disgusting how you invoke fairness and justice.

by mmjaa 9y ago

tw1010 9y ago

That might be part of it. But things are rarely that simple. Another big argument is to act as a safety net allowing people to take bigger risks, like starting a startup.

PoachedSausage 9y ago

Technology itself is rooted in laziness. I'm too lazy to wash my clothes and dishes so I have robotic washing boxes do it for me. The protestant work ethic has no place in the 21st century, so lets drop it.

ChrisSD 9y ago

Taxing spending tends to be regressive. Rich people end up paying less tax as a proportion of their income while the poor end up paying more. It is however less visible. Income tax is at least upfront about how much is taken whereas tax on spending is spread out and often invisible unless you're actively thinking about it. Sure you can make people happier about taxation by making it less visible but I'm not sure that's a good argument for it.

Simon_says 9y ago
I never really understood the argument that taxing spending taxes rich people a lower proportion of their income. Even allowing for investments and savings, rich and poor are all going to spend the money they have in their life (ignore or tax the estates). If there’s a 10% sales tax, then 9.0909...% of your wealth will go to it, no matter how much you make, invest, save.
- pedrocr 9y ago
  >rich and poor are all going to spend the money they have in their life (ignore or tax the estates). This is a spherical cow in a vaccum style argument. If you ignore estates and also ignore property and other investments that don't pay sales tax then yes, everyone pays the same sales tax. But the rich will disproportionally own investments and properties that will then be passed on to their heirs. Over any period and particarly over a few generations because of compounding this means taxing spending is indeed very regressive.
  - Simon_says 9y ago
    Sure, rich people will invest, and then get (hopefully more) money back and then spend it, subjecting it to same sales tax. And the tax on estates is higher than sales tax (over $5MM), so that’s hardly a dodge. I still really don’t understand the argument, and I still sort of suspect that it’s fallacious, though I’d enjoy being proven wrong. It seems to me that given a sales tax, a flat and identical percentage of every individual’s spending will go to the sales tax. If a person is “rich” but it doesn’t translate into spending or their estate, then what does that mean?
    - pedrocr 9y ago
      You're just restating the same mathematical impossibility. Compounding means that since you only pay sales tax at consumption rich people will pay much less as they will invest before the tax and have gains on all that pre-tax money. Estate tax is also definitely not higher than sales tax pretty much anywhere in the world. In the US in particular estate tax is only paid on very large estates which excludes almost everyone that matters for this calculation. For the purpose of this calculation estate tax is 0.
      - Simon_says 9y ago
        Yea, you caught me. I repeated the same argument because I think it works. And I don't see how your argument addresses it. In particular, this sentence: > Compounding means that since you only pay sales tax at consumption rich people will pay much less as they will invest before the tax and have gains on all that pre-tax money. doesn't really make much sense. Of course investments are pre-sales tax. The sales tax applies after the investments are liquidated to cash and the cash is used to purchase stuff. Let's say our hypothetical person is "rich", but it doesn't translate into extra consumption spending, then what's the point of being rich? It's not like he's getting anything out of it. You do have a point about estate taxes not affecting the majority of people, but estate taxes do affect estates with value greater than $5MM, and I'm working with the assumption that you and I are discussing "rich" people. The marginal estate tax in the U.S. ranges from 18% to 40%, which is higher than any sales tax.

nkohari 9y ago

The problem is that sales tax is an extremely regressive model. If two people buy $100 of goods, but one makes an income of $100K a year and the other $20K, the taxes are effectively 5X higher for the person making less money. No one likes paying any taxes, but at least income tax aligns the motivations of the individual with those of the government. If you make more money, you prosper, and so the government -- which ostensibly creates a society that helps you to prosper.

Simon_says 9y ago
Because the guy who makes 5 times more will spend 5 times more?
- nkohari 9y ago
  In practice, that isn't remotely true. People on the lower end of the income scale (are forced to) spend a much larger percentage of their income in order to meet their basic needs. People on the higher end of the scale spend more on a dollar-by-dollar basis, but a much smaller percentage of their income. Then they save and invest the rest, which also creates more wealth from their existing wealth.
  - Simon_says 9y ago
    When they save and invest, what do you think happens to that investment eventually? It's converted back into cash and spent, donated, or bequeathed. The fact that there's an intermediate step of investment is irrelevant to the fact that lifetime ingress of value equals lifetime egress of value.
    - nkohari 9y ago
      I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make any sense at all. All capital is not eventually spent; otherwise there would be no such thing as generational wealth. Technically speaking, I guess maybe over the course of the rise and fall of a society what you're saying is true, but I don't think the government would want to wait that long to see some tax revenue.

flotillo 9y ago

> So then, why would I work hard to become rich Why do you think that working hard will make you rich? For the vast majority of people, this isn't the case at all. Let's not revere the rich. Most of them acquired their wealth through a mixture of luck, unethical behaviour, and corruption.

mmjaa 9y ago
No, this is incorrect, and you are clearly inexperienced on the subject of being poor, or rich. Perhaps somewhere in between? I started off poor. I worked very hard. I'm much richer now as a result of it. Nobody will ever take that away from me.
- flotillo 9y ago
  Your experience is not universal, and you are lucky that your work resulted in you becoming considerably richer.
  - mmjaa 9y ago
    >the vast majority of people The vast majority of the rich people I know started out poor. I believe this is the case for the majority of the wealthy in the western world too.

devdad 9y ago

Comparing it with laziness is not far away from saying poor people are lazy. Laziness has nothing to do with it. More often than not, such claims are often connected with not seeing hidden privilege as a competitive advantage. Of all of my successful friends, only one come from a socioeconomic environment that isn't middle class or above. The ability to climb on the socioeconomic ladder is much harder for those without means and connections - these means and connections are almost always directly correlated to your family. As a personal anecdote, all of my kids friends have parents which are able to support them financially and are able to work 40-hour weeks. They are all academics and their kids get the benefit from having the language and mindset of academics from an early age. At the same time, my cousin is a couple of steps down on the same ladder. Her kids friends parents are working part time, often several jobs, and still have a hard time making ends meet. My kids are according to studies (on phone so won't be able to reference - an easy Google away) more likely to achieve economic success, go to college and have a better chance ending up one step up on the ladder. Her kids are more likely to end up in crime, less likely to go to college, more likely to stay in the same socioeconomic class. I'm pretty sure my work gives me more slack and ability to be able to be lazy than the part time factory worker. "Free money" would probably create more equality and a better chance for all kids. Your statement is shortsighted.

Simon_says 9y ago
In my opinion, informed by what I’ve witnessed personally amongst my peers, poor people are lazier, at least in a statistical, group-average sort of way. This isn’t meant to contradict anything you say about privilege or economic status of parents. In fact kids learn that hard work and contentiousness pay off from their role models, parents, and peers. So successful parents end up having successful kids, and the phenomenon is not explained fully by Dad’s connections. Saying it’s “privilege” is only the beginning of understanding. There are some aspects of personality that parents are imparting to kids, and if you’re interested in helping the rest of the kids, you have to understand what that is.

madez 9y ago

You assume rich people worked hard. I've seen rich people with baby soft hands that never worked hard. And I've seen dirt poor people with a broken body because of all the work. It's disgusting how you invoke fairness and justice.