4 ms·

(in the context of first world countries with functional welfare states) I'm deeply skeptical of the idea that we're going to get some sort of new deal where t

by Joeboy 9y ago

(in the context of first world countries with functional welfare states) I'm deeply skeptical of the idea that we're going to get some sort of new deal where the rich are suddenly happy with increased subsidy of the poor, in return for increased social cohesion or whatever. The rich generally resent paying taxes and avoid it where possible. Why are they suddenly going to be happy to pay more tax, to subsidize people who have no specific need for the subsidy? Supposing the US replaces its welfare system with basic income, surely the next thing that happens is that the rich buy a government that guts or kills basic income (which is, by definition, not needed). I suspect if you want the rich to pay for this you're going to have to be prepared to go full French revolution. I'm glad the video briefly touches on this question, but I find it frustrating how much of this debate focuses on the silly question of whether receiving free money morally taints people or whatever. Edit: I mean, one of BI's highest profile advocates is Mark Zuckerberg. Does Mark Zuckerberg seem enthusiastic about paying tax?

thriftwy 9y ago
My take: most of moneys nowdays go not to "the rich" but to various bubless and financial whirpools. It is possible that the rich would not oppose trading the depressed economy where the only thing growing is bubbles to healthy economy in which they get to keep relative wealth compared to their peers (albeit with smaller gap versus median person).
rev_bird 9y ago
>I suspect if you want the rich to pay for this you're going to have to be prepared to go full French revolution. The real challenge is decoupling capital from political power. Otherwise, yeah, why would the rich just sit and watch it float away? If "more money" continues to translate so literally into "more influence," it's pretty hard to blame the rich for using their money to influence the government in ways that will help them continue to keep their money—at that point, it's just an investment. Of course, this kind of supposes that the working class wouldn't vote to do that on their own. Given the recent trends in American politics, I've stopped making too many assumptions about the weird decisions we make as a group.
rpiguy 9y ago
The true long term vision for basic income, which this video does not touch on, does not involve the rich subsidizing the poor. When birthrates stabilize at or below the replacement rate it becomes difficult to grow an economy. Typically countries turn to immigration to make up the difference, but there are other ways (see below). Furthermore for economies such as the US economy, it needs consumers more than it needs producers. We are a consumer driven economy. So what does this have to do with UBI? Another way to grow the economy is to print money, and ultimately I think this is where UBI is headed. Instead of importing bodies to consume more, you simply create money so your existing individuals can consume more. Supply side economics seems to win when populations are growing, but good old aggregate demand style economics may win out the day once populations stabilize. In the near term I agree with you, I don't see giving up a giant military, or high enough tax rates to pay for a basic income scheme.

by Joeboy 9y ago

thriftwy 9y ago

My take: most of moneys nowdays go not to "the rich" but to various bubless and financial whirpools. It is possible that the rich would not oppose trading the depressed economy where the only thing growing is bubbles to healthy economy in which they get to keep relative wealth compared to their peers (albeit with smaller gap versus median person).

rev_bird 9y ago

>I suspect if you want the rich to pay for this you're going to have to be prepared to go full French revolution. The real challenge is decoupling capital from political power. Otherwise, yeah, why would the rich just sit and watch it float away? If "more money" continues to translate so literally into "more influence," it's pretty hard to blame the rich for using their money to influence the government in ways that will help them continue to keep their money—at that point, it's just an investment. Of course, this kind of supposes that the working class wouldn't vote to do that on their own. Given the recent trends in American politics, I've stopped making too many assumptions about the weird decisions we make as a group.

rpiguy 9y ago

The true long term vision for basic income, which this video does not touch on, does not involve the rich subsidizing the poor. When birthrates stabilize at or below the replacement rate it becomes difficult to grow an economy. Typically countries turn to immigration to make up the difference, but there are other ways (see below). Furthermore for economies such as the US economy, it needs consumers more than it needs producers. We are a consumer driven economy. So what does this have to do with UBI? Another way to grow the economy is to print money, and ultimately I think this is where UBI is headed. Instead of importing bodies to consume more, you simply create money so your existing individuals can consume more. Supply side economics seems to win when populations are growing, but good old aggregate demand style economics may win out the day once populations stabilize. In the near term I agree with you, I don't see giving up a giant military, or high enough tax rates to pay for a basic income scheme.