3 ms·
Universal Dividend, the idea being that we all are investors in the world around us, particularly in the act of creating the next generation and staying alive t
by jostylr 8y ago
Universal Dividend, the idea being that we all are investors in the world around us, particularly in the act of creating the next generation and staying alive to be the workers, consumers, etc. So everyone gets a cut of the general profits.
If one is against this idea, then ask why any investor of money into a company should get money back from it when they did no explicit work for it? If you reject the universal dividend idea, then one, to be consistent, should really reject the idea of investment. Good luck with such an economy.
So instead of the demeaning UBI narrative that people need money to survive, it suggests an uplifting narrative that we are all valuable and that we all get a bit of something back to reflect our useful existence as well as a little something in order to "invest" it into the next act of creating something. It captures the idea that our society is built not just economically and bureaucratically, but also socially. That having neighbors, coworkers, customers is important for economies and governments. These are hard things to support with metrics, etc, so we just decide on a basic level and give it out.
What that level is would be debatable, just as how much an investor makes from dividends or buybacks, is debatable. Since I think the ability to walk away is the most important aspect of freedom and that freedom is an important value, I would want a higher amount than you suggest. But a lower amount would work as well with that label.
Spit ball: What is a mediocre growth return rate? Maybe 4%? So tax wealth at 4% and distribute it across all the citizens. Anyone who can use their wealth to generate more than 4% will see it grow (these are the successful people) while those who cannot will see their wealth dwindle and would be the typical case. This also addresses the wealth inequality issue. Incidentally, at 100 trillion dollars of wealth, this leads to 4 trillion to distribute across the population of say about 330 million leading to about 12,000 dollars a year or so.
This also suggests that the dividend should be applied equally to all people which includes, especially so, children. This is an investment in human existence and a celebration of all of us. Note that this also addresses the concern of a single mother of 3 who would get 12k for herself, 12k for each of her children leading to 48k to take care of her kids, keep them out of poverty, keep them nourished, loved, protected, not abused, etc. It also makes even an unemployed spouse economically useful to have around, but it also enables one to economically walk away from an abusive spouse. This would also lead to the ability to eliminate forced public schooling and much more organic growth of true individuals, free of labels, bullies, adult abuse, and indoctrination.
One might view it as almost a Universal Investment for the young, Universal Income for the middle aged, and a Universal Dividend for the old.
- TomMarius 8y ago> If one is against this idea, then ask why any investor of money into a company should get money back from it when they did no explicit work for it? Because they did. They put their capital (that they worked for, or their ancestors did) at risk so someone could use it. It's only fair that they get a cut.
- jostylr 8y agoIf you trace the history of that capital to a violent past, such as slave owners or government eviction of natives or violent suppression of people's rights or unfair distribution of wealth by the government or redlining, ... is it still fair? If fairness is a concern, one would seem to be led, at the very least, to want to wipe the slate clean for every new individual; no transference of wealth or privilege from one generation to the next. Only self-made people, self-made by above board behaviors, nothing morally or legally questionable. Then sure. Since that has nothing to do with the actual distribution of wealth in the world, saying it is only fair seems an inadequate justification. In general, I have always thought the idea is that successful investors can invest successfully and so giving new capital to such individuals leads to further successful invested in ventures, enriching society further. The same thing goes here. Living individuals have been successful at living, which usually requires great effort and skill by both the individual and the community, and so why not give a bit back to further that journey, a journey that enriches us all.
- TomMarius 8y agoIf you can trace inherited money back to an immoral past, then it's not fair, IMO. However there really isn't much of this kind of wealth anymore. I completely disagree with you about fairness though. I'm working so my kids can have a comfortable life, that's almost the only point of the work I'm doing, and it's not fair to not let me work for them.