2 ms·

Can u clarify, How is it not have any basis in reality ?

by matz1 8y ago

yakshaving_jgt 8y ago
I mean I would expect you to back up your claim with some kind of scientific study that humans in general opt to produce value for society purely altruistically. I highly doubt that’s the case, but I have an open mind and I’d be delighted to be proven wrong. As I understand it, most societal benefit and technological advancement has come from humans acting selfishly. You develop an idea while seeking profit — not necessarily money; this behaviour far predates money — and society benefits as a side effect (if the development of that idea is in some way beneficial).
- matz1 8y ago
  >I mean I would expect you to back up your claim with some kind of scientific study that humans in general opt to produce value for society purely altruistically. That's not what I claiming at all. What I'm saying is if you want to produce value then go ahead keep producing value for whatever reason, it could be purely for selfish reason for all i care. But You still have to pay tax for your income though, thats for allowing you to do business. Of course if you produce value you will be a lot more richer than people who don't produce value, thats an advantage for you. And for people who can't or won't produce value, fine, here is basic income for you so that you can still fulfil your basic needs. So its not one happy person at the expense of someone else.
  - yakshaving_jgt 8y ago
    > But You still have to pay tax for your income though, thats for allowing you to do business. I don’t think “allowing you to do business” is the arbitrary motivator for taxes. Societies deem it more efficient to pool resources for common needs we all have. This is taxes. Conventional welfare also provides for a person’s “basic needs”, usually with the condition that that person is actively searching for an opportunity to add value. People need to add value for societies to prosper. Wealth doesn’t just appear. Bear in mind that the only reason, e.g., Sweden can spend so much on welfare is after long periods of wealth creation through Capitalism. If enough people are on free money with no incentive to work, there isn’t enough wealth generated to pay for the people living on free money. > And for people who can't or won't produce value, fine, here is basic income for you so that you can still fulfil your basic needs. Who gets to decide what a basic need is, anyway? Since I’m paying for it through taxes, I would deem your basic needs as shelter, food, and water. Warmth? Luxury. Television? Luxury. > So its not one happy person at the expense of someone else. It really is though. There’s no other way to put it. It’s the consumption of wealth on the back of someone else’s labour.
    - matz1 8y ago
      >If enough people are on free money with no incentive to work, there isn’t enough wealth generated to pay for the people living on free money. Is not an issue because one of the main reason for basic income in the first place is the increasing prevalence and advancement of AI and automation. Means we are needing less and less people to work. >Conventional welfare also provides for a person’s “basic needs”, usually with the condition that that person is actively searching for an opportunity to add value. What often happen is welfare incentives discourage work. Because entering the labor force or working more hours can lead to a loss in benefits. >Who gets to decide what a basic need is, anyway? Government. Of course it's based on research to determine the actual dollar amount. >It really is though. There’s no other way to put it. It’s the consumption of wealth on the back of someone else’s labour. Sure, but the thing is no once is forcing you to work, if you think its unfair or you think its better for you not to do work then fine don't work then. Other people will.
      - yakshaving_jgt 8y ago
        > Government. Of course there will be research to determine the actual dollar amount. This seems a reductionist perspective. The government is made up of people like you and me. It is not an omnipotent entity. The way I'm interpreting what you've written, you could swap out Government for God. Like any other moral question, there is no one true answer to a question like "how many dollars/facilities constitutes basic need?". That's why there are different political parties, opposing views, debates. > Sure, but the thing is no once is forcing you to work, if you think its unfair or you think its better for you not to do work then fine don't work then. Other people will. …But everyone is forced to pay taxes. If I choose not to work, the government still takes your money by force and gives it to me. > Other people will. This vague "other people" somehow stands at the core of every argument for Socialism.
        matz1 8y ago
        I'm not religious so not sure what god has to do with this. Yes there are no true answer, its open for debate. Andrew Yang, 2020 candidate, for example propose $12000 a year. Its a start. >…But everyone is forced to pay taxes. Not if you are not working. No income (other than basic income) -> no tax. >If I choose not to work, the government still takes your money by force and gives it to me. sure, fine by me. I'll just treat the tax as cost of doing business. I still get to make more money. > Other people will. For example me, I will still continue to work even if basic income enough to cover my needs. Why? because I enjoy it and fulfilling or maybe I just simply want to earn more money for luxury or whatever.

Can u clarify, How is it not have any basis in reality ?

by matz1 8y ago

Can u clarify, How is it not have any basis in reality ?

I mean I would expect you to back up your claim with some kind of scientific study that humans in general opt to produce value for society purely altruistically. I highly doubt that’s the case, but I have an open mind and I’d be delighted to be proven wrong. As I understand it, most societal benefit and technological advancement has come from humans acting selfishly. You develop an idea while seeking profit — not necessarily money; this behaviour far predates money — and society benefits as a side effect (if the development of that idea is in some way beneficial).

matz1 8y ago
>I mean I would expect you to back up your claim with some kind of scientific study that humans in general opt to produce value for society purely altruistically. That's not what I claiming at all. What I'm saying is if you want to produce value then go ahead keep producing value for whatever reason, it could be purely for selfish reason for all i care. But You still have to pay tax for your income though, thats for allowing you to do business. Of course if you produce value you will be a lot more richer than people who don't produce value, thats an advantage for you. And for people who can't or won't produce value, fine, here is basic income for you so that you can still fulfil your basic needs. So its not one happy person at the expense of someone else.
- yakshaving_jgt 8y ago
  > But You still have to pay tax for your income though, thats for allowing you to do business. I don’t think “allowing you to do business” is the arbitrary motivator for taxes. Societies deem it more efficient to pool resources for common needs we all have. This is taxes. Conventional welfare also provides for a person’s “basic needs”, usually with the condition that that person is actively searching for an opportunity to add value. People need to add value for societies to prosper. Wealth doesn’t just appear. Bear in mind that the only reason, e.g., Sweden can spend so much on welfare is after long periods of wealth creation through Capitalism. If enough people are on free money with no incentive to work, there isn’t enough wealth generated to pay for the people living on free money. > And for people who can't or won't produce value, fine, here is basic income for you so that you can still fulfil your basic needs. Who gets to decide what a basic need is, anyway? Since I’m paying for it through taxes, I would deem your basic needs as shelter, food, and water. Warmth? Luxury. Television? Luxury. > So its not one happy person at the expense of someone else. It really is though. There’s no other way to put it. It’s the consumption of wealth on the back of someone else’s labour.
  - matz1 8y ago
    >If enough people are on free money with no incentive to work, there isn’t enough wealth generated to pay for the people living on free money. Is not an issue because one of the main reason for basic income in the first place is the increasing prevalence and advancement of AI and automation. Means we are needing less and less people to work. >Conventional welfare also provides for a person’s “basic needs”, usually with the condition that that person is actively searching for an opportunity to add value. What often happen is welfare incentives discourage work. Because entering the labor force or working more hours can lead to a loss in benefits. >Who gets to decide what a basic need is, anyway? Government. Of course it's based on research to determine the actual dollar amount. >It really is though. There’s no other way to put it. It’s the consumption of wealth on the back of someone else’s labour. Sure, but the thing is no once is forcing you to work, if you think its unfair or you think its better for you not to do work then fine don't work then. Other people will.
    - yakshaving_jgt 8y ago
      > Government. Of course there will be research to determine the actual dollar amount. This seems a reductionist perspective. The government is made up of people like you and me. It is not an omnipotent entity. The way I'm interpreting what you've written, you could swap out Government for God. Like any other moral question, there is no one true answer to a question like "how many dollars/facilities constitutes basic need?". That's why there are different political parties, opposing views, debates. > Sure, but the thing is no once is forcing you to work, if you think its unfair or you think its better for you not to do work then fine don't work then. Other people will. …But everyone is forced to pay taxes. If I choose not to work, the government still takes your money by force and gives it to me. > Other people will. This vague "other people" somehow stands at the core of every argument for Socialism.
      - matz1 8y ago
        I'm not religious so not sure what god has to do with this. Yes there are no true answer, its open for debate. Andrew Yang, 2020 candidate, for example propose $12000 a year. Its a start. >…But everyone is forced to pay taxes. Not if you are not working. No income (other than basic income) -> no tax. >If I choose not to work, the government still takes your money by force and gives it to me. sure, fine by me. I'll just treat the tax as cost of doing business. I still get to make more money. > Other people will. For example me, I will still continue to work even if basic income enough to cover my needs. Why? because I enjoy it and fulfilling or maybe I just simply want to earn more money for luxury or whatever.