6 ms·

Such systems cost money, generally collected through taxation. At least in the US, the rich have largely demonstrated that they would rather direct money toward

by 1986 8y ago

Such systems cost money, generally collected through taxation. At least in the US, the rich have largely demonstrated that they would rather direct money towards lobbying against a rise in taxation on them, than to the taxes that would fund such a system. So at its core, "the rich don't care" isn't an empty argument, but rather an accurate assessment of one of the root causes.

frockington 8y ago
As someone who has to pay taxes but not rich enough to lobby on my own I am very thankful for these citizens efforts
sokoloff 8y ago
It's perfectly possible to care about an issue supported by taxation and still be opposed to higher general taxation. I'm very much pro-UBI, yet anti government waste. Too much of government acts, or at least appears to act, as little fiefdoms, employing people with relatively comfortable salaries, no market pressure, and little other controls to ensure they run tightly, efficiently, and effectively. If you want to raise taxes to only fund UBI, I'm in. If you want to raise taxes because you don't like that some monkeys have more bananas and you think society could make better, unspecified, use of those bananas, I'm against.
- extralego 8y ago
  Your views exemplify selfish priorities and an uncaring worldview. If you care about others, let it be reflected in your behavior and people (like me) will stop doubting you. Is your issue with government in the abstract or your government? If the latter, the caring solution is to change the government through voting, vocalizing and organizing. Governments are instituted to maintain a level of civility in a society. Naturally, poverty erodes the means for civility so governments in civilized nations around the world successfully apply their government as an organization sufficient for this task. If that sufficiency falls below their approval, they repair it. If your issue concerns government in the abstract, then quite simply: you don’t care about people in poverty. If you can’t find the decency to be honest about that, then you’ve got even bigger problems. UBI prioritizes your economy, not your neighbors in poverty. Note Socialists do not support UBI and for anyone concerned that socialists simply want handouts, this should table that argument once and for all. Social programs prioritize caring for people by: - Decoupling access to basic commodity needs from the whims and woes of the market - Built-in protections from abuse. Uncaring folk like to criticize welfare cash recipients as dishonest and lazy. Social programs that avoid cash also avoid this potential altogether.
  - mathgladiator 8y ago
    Are we going to play empathy Olympics? The problem is that you can't decouple commodity needs from the market because life is suffering.
    - wilsonnb2 8y ago
      > you can't decouple commodity needs from the market Why not? Isn't that what agricultural subsidies are for?
    - germinalphrase 8y ago
      I’m having trouble parsing this sentence. Is this a moral argument about the value of suffering? That suffering is inevitable so lack of access the market can/should be ignored?
  - sokoloff 8y ago
    > you don’t care about people in poverty. If you can’t find the decency to be honest about that, then you’ve got even bigger problems. I have a positive, but finite, amount that I care about people in poverty. > UBI prioritizes your economy, not your neighbors in poverty Giving people in poverty a sustenance level of amount money per month seems it prioritizes neighbors in poverty more than today. To use your own words: If you can’t find the decency to be honest about that, then you’ve got even bigger problems.
    - extralego 8y ago
      >I have a positive, but finite, amount that I care about people in poverty. It appears too low to effectively help them except in the case that the same effort might also help yourself. This is not caring. >Giving people in poverty a sustenance level of amount money per month seems it prioritizes neighbors in poverty more than today The contradictions and other problems really are too long to list here but it shouldn’t be necessary. For someone so concerned with wasting money, advocating UBI over direct commodity distribution is about as hypocritical as it gets. The only difference is an additional and purely self-serving dependency on market values, which are drastically unstable across time, geography and, social structures. So, while your claim is of course untested, your proposal only further establishes that once it is instatiated, the results will be ever-changing and your claim therefor unknowable. You might do best to just state why* you would prefer UBI over direct commodity distribution.
manigandham 8y ago
Maybe consider that it's how taxes are actually used instead of just higher taxes?
IOT_Apprentice 8y ago
Look at San Francisco and it's homeless population, coupled with the insane housing costs. And the continued idiocy of locating startups in the city. see https://nypost.com/2018/07/08/san-franciscos-crisis-looks-like-new-yorks-future/ https://nypost.com/2018/07/08/san-franciscos-crisis-looks-li...

by 1986 8y ago

frockington 8y ago

As someone who has to pay taxes but not rich enough to lobby on my own I am very thankful for these citizens efforts

sokoloff 8y ago

It's perfectly possible to care about an issue supported by taxation and still be opposed to higher general taxation. I'm very much pro-UBI, yet anti government waste. Too much of government acts, or at least appears to act, as little fiefdoms, employing people with relatively comfortable salaries, no market pressure, and little other controls to ensure they run tightly, efficiently, and effectively. If you want to raise taxes to only fund UBI, I'm in. If you want to raise taxes because you don't like that some monkeys have more bananas and you think society could make better, unspecified, use of those bananas, I'm against.

extralego 8y ago
Your views exemplify selfish priorities and an uncaring worldview. If you care about others, let it be reflected in your behavior and people (like me) will stop doubting you. Is your issue with government in the abstract or your government? If the latter, the caring solution is to change the government through voting, vocalizing and organizing. Governments are instituted to maintain a level of civility in a society. Naturally, poverty erodes the means for civility so governments in civilized nations around the world successfully apply their government as an organization sufficient for this task. If that sufficiency falls below their approval, they repair it. If your issue concerns government in the abstract, then quite simply: you don’t care about people in poverty. If you can’t find the decency to be honest about that, then you’ve got even bigger problems. UBI prioritizes your economy, not your neighbors in poverty. Note Socialists do not support UBI and for anyone concerned that socialists simply want handouts, this should table that argument once and for all. Social programs prioritize caring for people by: - Decoupling access to basic commodity needs from the whims and woes of the market - Built-in protections from abuse. Uncaring folk like to criticize welfare cash recipients as dishonest and lazy. Social programs that avoid cash also avoid this potential altogether.
- mathgladiator 8y ago
  Are we going to play empathy Olympics? The problem is that you can't decouple commodity needs from the market because life is suffering.
  - wilsonnb2 8y ago
    > you can't decouple commodity needs from the market Why not? Isn't that what agricultural subsidies are for?
  - germinalphrase 8y ago
    I’m having trouble parsing this sentence. Is this a moral argument about the value of suffering? That suffering is inevitable so lack of access the market can/should be ignored?
- sokoloff 8y ago
  > you don’t care about people in poverty. If you can’t find the decency to be honest about that, then you’ve got even bigger problems. I have a positive, but finite, amount that I care about people in poverty. > UBI prioritizes your economy, not your neighbors in poverty Giving people in poverty a sustenance level of amount money per month seems it prioritizes neighbors in poverty more than today. To use your own words: If you can’t find the decency to be honest about that, then you’ve got even bigger problems.
  - extralego 8y ago
    >I have a positive, but finite, amount that I care about people in poverty. It appears too low to effectively help them except in the case that the same effort might also help yourself. This is not caring. >Giving people in poverty a sustenance level of amount money per month seems it prioritizes neighbors in poverty more than today The contradictions and other problems really are too long to list here but it shouldn’t be necessary. For someone so concerned with wasting money, advocating UBI over direct commodity distribution is about as hypocritical as it gets. The only difference is an additional and purely self-serving dependency on market values, which are drastically unstable across time, geography and, social structures. So, while your claim is of course untested, your proposal only further establishes that once it is instatiated, the results will be ever-changing and your claim therefor unknowable. You might do best to just state why* you would prefer UBI over direct commodity distribution.

manigandham 8y ago

Maybe consider that it's how taxes are actually used instead of just higher taxes?

IOT_Apprentice 8y ago

Look at San Francisco and it's homeless population, coupled with the insane housing costs. And the continued idiocy of locating startups in the city. see https://nypost.com/2018/07/08/san-franciscos-crisis-looks-like-new-yorks-future/ https://nypost.com/2018/07/08/san-franciscos-crisis-looks-li...