4 ms·

This just struck me as the same reason UBI is a great policy for governments. Just distribute the cash people, you’re too big to allocate it well!

vasco 7y ago
That's just an argument for lowering taxes.
- jonny_eh 7y ago
  No, that's assuming that the free market is best at distributing wealth. Evenly distributing at least some of the money isn't the same as "spending" it.
  - gwright 7y ago
    The casual assumption that it is appropriate for government to tax people in order to distribute wealth "evenly" is disturbing. I'm reacting to the "even distribution" notion not taxing in general. I think there are legitimate reasons for government to collect taxes but ensuring even distribution of wealth isn't one of them, IMHO.
    - rorykoehler 7y ago
      Uni is even to a cap which is completely different than even. Making sure everyone has enough to comfortably survive without restricting high earners from chasing riches is not the same as evenly distributing wealth.
    - jonny_eh 7y ago
      There's a difference between evenly distributing ALL money, as in communism, and a minimum so that people don't need to suffer in poverty. You're making a value judgement that it's worse to distribute some tax dollars than to turn a blind eye to poverty.
      - gwright 7y ago
        I explicitly said I was responding to the notion of "even" and not arguing against taxing in general.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  > That's just an argument for lowering taxes. It's both. You don't tax people and then provide everyone with a free dog, you just let people keep their money and they'll use it to get a dog if they want one. If you want to help the poor, you don't give them bureaucratic programs that require them to buy specific amounts and types of food, housing and education, you just give them the money and they can figure out what they need better than you. In that case some of the money came from different people than it went to, but it's still the same principle.
  - meddlepal 7y ago
    > you just give them the money and they can figure out what they need better than you. Alternatively they fall prey to lotteries, casinos, drugs, alcohol, or any other number of things and you're right back at square one... give them more money. It's a blackhole feel-good policy that ignores reality. It's better to put strong social safety nets in place. Buy the food and the clothes for them, maybe even establish a discretionary stippend. But don't just say to people here's 20K ... Good luck! Most people don't have a concept of budgeting... It's not going to work.
    - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
      > Alternatively they fall prey to lotteries, casinos, drugs, alcohol, or any other number of things and you're right back at square one... This is contrary to evidence. There are people who are poor and there are people who are addicts, but the extent to which they overlap is only because of the tendency of addiction to make you poor. The bulk of the poor are not poor because they piss their money away on drugs and casinos. Moreover, giving people stuff instead of money doesn't help the addicts -- or anyone else -- because stuff is fungible like money, only less efficiently. You give an addict food and shelter and they'll sell the food and sublet the shelter and go blow the money on their addiction. Because the root of their problem isn't that they don't have enough food or housing or money, it's that they need to break their addiction or they will never hold onto those things. Meanwhile giving out stuff instead of money only costs the taxpayer more for the same amount of benefit, because that inefficiency is universal. You give people money for clothes and they'll buy clothes with it, even if they already have clothes, because they can't spend it on anything else. But that's just a waste of the taxpayer's money, when it could otherwise have gone to something they actually needed.

vasco 7y ago

That's just an argument for lowering taxes.

jonny_eh 7y ago
No, that's assuming that the free market is best at distributing wealth. Evenly distributing at least some of the money isn't the same as "spending" it.
- gwright 7y ago
  The casual assumption that it is appropriate for government to tax people in order to distribute wealth "evenly" is disturbing. I'm reacting to the "even distribution" notion not taxing in general. I think there are legitimate reasons for government to collect taxes but ensuring even distribution of wealth isn't one of them, IMHO.
  - rorykoehler 7y ago
    Uni is even to a cap which is completely different than even. Making sure everyone has enough to comfortably survive without restricting high earners from chasing riches is not the same as evenly distributing wealth.
  - jonny_eh 7y ago
    There's a difference between evenly distributing ALL money, as in communism, and a minimum so that people don't need to suffer in poverty. You're making a value judgement that it's worse to distribute some tax dollars than to turn a blind eye to poverty.
    - gwright 7y ago
      I explicitly said I was responding to the notion of "even" and not arguing against taxing in general.
AnthonyMouse 7y ago
> That's just an argument for lowering taxes. It's both. You don't tax people and then provide everyone with a free dog, you just let people keep their money and they'll use it to get a dog if they want one. If you want to help the poor, you don't give them bureaucratic programs that require them to buy specific amounts and types of food, housing and education, you just give them the money and they can figure out what they need better than you. In that case some of the money came from different people than it went to, but it's still the same principle.
- meddlepal 7y ago
  > you just give them the money and they can figure out what they need better than you. Alternatively they fall prey to lotteries, casinos, drugs, alcohol, or any other number of things and you're right back at square one... give them more money. It's a blackhole feel-good policy that ignores reality. It's better to put strong social safety nets in place. Buy the food and the clothes for them, maybe even establish a discretionary stippend. But don't just say to people here's 20K ... Good luck! Most people don't have a concept of budgeting... It's not going to work.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    > Alternatively they fall prey to lotteries, casinos, drugs, alcohol, or any other number of things and you're right back at square one... This is contrary to evidence. There are people who are poor and there are people who are addicts, but the extent to which they overlap is only because of the tendency of addiction to make you poor. The bulk of the poor are not poor because they piss their money away on drugs and casinos. Moreover, giving people stuff instead of money doesn't help the addicts -- or anyone else -- because stuff is fungible like money, only less efficiently. You give an addict food and shelter and they'll sell the food and sublet the shelter and go blow the money on their addiction. Because the root of their problem isn't that they don't have enough food or housing or money, it's that they need to break their addiction or they will never hold onto those things. Meanwhile giving out stuff instead of money only costs the taxpayer more for the same amount of benefit, because that inefficiency is universal. You give people money for clothes and they'll buy clothes with it, even if they already have clothes, because they can't spend it on anything else. But that's just a waste of the taxpayer's money, when it could otherwise have gone to something they actually needed.