3 ms·

I want to write a loooong point-by-point rebuttal but I'm just too lazy. Now if I were awarded a basic income maybe I'd take out a day and write it up! But here

I want to write a loooong point-by-point rebuttal but I'm just too lazy. Now if I were awarded a basic income maybe I'd take out a day and write it up! But here's a summary: I am in the top 20% whose income is still going up and whose tax will be used to pay out the UBI. What's in it for me? Why should I care? I really don't. And all the politicians are also in the top 1% (POTUS is a fucking billionaire, former POTUS gets $400k for a speech). Even a poor man becomes rich when he is elected. Why would he care about the 80%. There is no rational world in which a UBI will work or be implemented as envisioned by the author.

madez 9y ago
The poor won't burn your neighbourhood and threaten your children. That's what's in for the rich. That sounds dramatic, but look at Brazil, and you can see that what I'm saying is not hyperbolic. There is a huge correlation of the success of one person and their surrounding. In other words, for ones own interest the success of those around one is important. Helping the weaker helps a lot of other people.
- thescribe 9y ago
  I feel like you're saying that basic income is extortion? That seems like a bit of an extreme stance.
  - madez 9y ago
    I think it depends on how you want to frame what I said. Helping the poor at least around you is good for you. Now, you could say equivalently not helping the poor around you is bad for you. Rephrase what I said if you feel uncomfortable with how I stated it. If in a mafia controlled city you tell a friend not to publicly expose a mafioso for else he and is family is in danger, are you blackmailing your friend or are you simply stating facts?
rjsw 9y ago
The alternative to UBI for you is that you either spend the rest of your life in a castle or your head ends up on a spike. It isn't a coincidence that Thomas Piketty is a Parisian, you can still see plenty of signs of the Revolution on buildings around the city.
- dingo_bat 9y ago
  I don't see any support for your assertion. Why wouldn't we continue the status quo for a 1000 years? There certainly have been long periods in history where royalty has lived in riches and the majority have worked their ass off to support them. Only at the end do the royals get killed. But right now we're just starting! I expect this to last much longer too this time, since we have more automation now.
  - rjsw 9y ago
    We are not preserving the status quo right now, the rich are getting richer. There is also the point that 1000 years ago the poor didn't know that they could kill kings, there are more examples of how to do it now.
    - dingo_bat 9y ago
      > We are not preserving the status quo right now, the rich are getting richer. The status quo is that some people are rich and some are poor. To maintain it means the same people (more-or-less) stay rich and the same people stay poor. > There is also the point that 1000 years ago the poor didn't know that they could kill kings What? People did not know about death?

madez 9y ago

The poor won't burn your neighbourhood and threaten your children. That's what's in for the rich. That sounds dramatic, but look at Brazil, and you can see that what I'm saying is not hyperbolic. There is a huge correlation of the success of one person and their surrounding. In other words, for ones own interest the success of those around one is important. Helping the weaker helps a lot of other people.

thescribe 9y ago
I feel like you're saying that basic income is extortion? That seems like a bit of an extreme stance.
- madez 9y ago
  I think it depends on how you want to frame what I said. Helping the poor at least around you is good for you. Now, you could say equivalently not helping the poor around you is bad for you. Rephrase what I said if you feel uncomfortable with how I stated it. If in a mafia controlled city you tell a friend not to publicly expose a mafioso for else he and is family is in danger, are you blackmailing your friend or are you simply stating facts?

rjsw 9y ago

The alternative to UBI for you is that you either spend the rest of your life in a castle or your head ends up on a spike. It isn't a coincidence that Thomas Piketty is a Parisian, you can still see plenty of signs of the Revolution on buildings around the city.

dingo_bat 9y ago
I don't see any support for your assertion. Why wouldn't we continue the status quo for a 1000 years? There certainly have been long periods in history where royalty has lived in riches and the majority have worked their ass off to support them. Only at the end do the royals get killed. But right now we're just starting! I expect this to last much longer too this time, since we have more automation now.
- rjsw 9y ago
  We are not preserving the status quo right now, the rich are getting richer. There is also the point that 1000 years ago the poor didn't know that they could kill kings, there are more examples of how to do it now.
  - dingo_bat 9y ago
    > We are not preserving the status quo right now, the rich are getting richer. The status quo is that some people are rich and some are poor. To maintain it means the same people (more-or-less) stay rich and the same people stay poor. > There is also the point that 1000 years ago the poor didn't know that they could kill kings What? People did not know about death?