22 ms·

"Altman, who favors UBI, said in exchange for a floor, he’d like to see no ceiling on earnings, as some, like presidential hopeful Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders,

"Altman, who favors UBI, said in exchange for a floor, he’d like to see no ceiling on earnings, as some, like presidential hopeful Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, have suggested. And like Friedman, Altman suggested tying the amount of the basic income to a fixed percentage of GDP. “Right now, because people are rightly angry that there's no floor, and that most people have no real chance to be super successful, we sort of say billionaires are inherently evil,” he said. “I think it would be great to say, we as a society will allow trillionaires in exchange for a floor for everyone.”" The problem with having a handful of people be billionaires and trillionaires is that money is power, and with that amount of money you have nearly unlimited power and influence over everyone and everything. A system that will concentrate that much power will be inherently evil, it will and does serve the needs of that few over the needs of the many. UBI just doesn't solve that, and it especially doesn't solve that when it's being funded by a highly regressive VAT tax that none of these ultra wealthy people will ever pay as Yang is proposing. Honestly, this whole Yang project just strikes me as a weird 10x play by wealthy bay area VC types to get out of paying more progressive income taxes by attempting to bamboozle voters into a regressive tax based UBI they will shoulder the burdon on, so we will forget about major structural problems like wealth concentration. Regardless, no, I don't think trillionaires should exist and I'm pretty confused why anybody thinks that is going to work out well for them, competition, or democracy.

tells 7y ago
this is very inflammatory and false. The VAT is not highly regressive. Money is power but poverty stricken people literally have zero money. How are gov't "programs" going to help? democrats love "programs" because it just gives them something to show off. it hardly solves any real problems. I doubt you've lived through any sort of poverty or have felt like the walls were closing in on your life, but people live that everyday. For those that have been through it, it hardly feels like a "weird 10x play"
- kyledrake 7y ago
  It is not inflammatory or false. VAT taxes are regressive consumption-based taxes, and poorer people disproportionately bear the costs compared to the wealthy. It's very well established among economists https://www.quora.com/Why-is-value-added-tax-regressive https://www.quora.com/Why-is-value-added-tax-regressive > I doubt you've lived through any sort of poverty or have felt like the walls were closing in on your life, but people live that everyday. For those that have been through it, it hardly feels like a "weird 10x play" The poor and working class of this country clearly have a candidate they stand by, and it's Bernie Sanders, who is about to set a record for the largest number of small dollar contributions in US history. You won't find them at $5600 a plate dinners at Sam Altman's mansion in California. To their great credit, the working poor in this country seem much more interested in an agenda that proposes real change to systemic inequality and poverty, rather than just pouring some regressively funded UBI candy coating over the existing broken system and expecting it to not get much, much worse.
  - tells 7y ago
    on the presupposition that the VAT is flat across all goods. look at Yang's plan. this is not the case. https://www.yang2020.com/what-is-freedom-dividend-faq/ https://www.yang2020.com/what-is-freedom-dividend-faq/
    - barrkel 7y ago
      VAT is a tax on goods and services. Wealth inequality comes from people owning future streams of income, not stuff; rentiers, in other words. To the degree that VAT decreases wealth inequality, it's only by harming the net present value of those future income streams. It would be better to have a more equitable distribution of ownership without harming wealth production.
      - devonkim 7y ago
        Sharing the gains in some manner is the right goal, no question. The question is what approach will be most effective. Bernie’s corporate accountability plan is thus the perhaps more direct set of proposals instead of something like the FJG and climate plan. Oddly enough, the CAP is not talked about much yet and there’s already dozens of holes in it. Maybe in 1975 it would work but corporations have moved far beyond what Bernie’s plan could accomplish. Admittedly better than nothing but the administrative overhead of this should be pushed with a massive overhaul of our federal regulatory agencies including improving the career paths of those in federal service. Yang’s got the dynamic of federal bureaucrats down correctly. It’s the same ones I went through and why I left federal service a decade ago. Bernie’s commitment to service is incredibly inspiring but relying upon other people to be more like Bernie is not a plan, nor is relying upon more executives to be like Yang is not a plan either. I’m not an either/or kind of person and see Bernie and Yang working together on legislation as a real, material step forward.
3131s 7y ago
> The problem with having a handful of people be billionaires and trillionaires is that money is power, and with that amount of money you have nearly unlimited power and influence over everyone and everything. Sure, and that's why we need a mechanism to redistribute that wealth... like a UBI. > a highly regressive VAT tax that none of these ultra wealthy people will ever pay. Yang proposes to exempt basic goods from the VAT, but more importantly, the central appeal of a VAT is that tax evasion is made more difficult! A VAT naturally creates an audit trail of both parties in every transaction where value is added. If one party is incentivized to report, for example via a tax credit for the end consumer, then everyone else in the chain of crediting is incentivized to do so also.
- kyledrake 7y ago
  If you're using a regressive VAT tax to pay for UBI you are not redistributing wealth, you are disproportionately taxing the poor to distribute to themselves (https://www.quora.com/Why-is-value-added-tax-regressive https://www.quora.com/Why-is-value-added-tax-regressive) much of which will be lost as the prices of goods increases to match equilibrium. Amazon won't "pay the tax" it will pass the tax along in the form of higher consumer prices. If the primary concern is tax evasion, there are many ways to improve this while still maintaining progressive taxation. And I'm sorry, but even if this would work, I'm still not going to be sold on the idea that the world should be lorded over by a few trillionaires from California.
  - 3131s 7y ago
    > If you're using a regressive VAT tax to pay for UBI you are not redistributing wealth, you are disproportionately taxing the poor to distribute to themselves (https://www.quora.com/Why-is-value-added-tax-regressive https://www.quora.com/Why-is-value-added-tax-regressive) much of which will be lost as the prices of goods increases to match equilibrium. Amazon won't "pay the tax" it will pass the tax along in the form of higher consumer prices. A flat value added tax is regressive, but a VAT itself is not inherently regressive. Imagine if we have a VAT on yachts and nothing else, does that disproportionately affect the rich or the poor? That's why Yang is proposing to exempt basic goods and raise the rate on some luxury items. Even under a flat 10% VAT paired with the UBI, you would only be worse off if you spend $120,000 yearly on items with a 100% pass through (the IMF's estimates on the average pass through under a VAT are much lower than this). > If the primary concern is tax evasion, there are many ways to improve this while still maintaining progressive taxation. You are going to need to specify a better alternative then. Again, a VAT has inherent properties that make it highly auditable and therefore easier to administer. A wealth tax, in comparison, is much more subject to misreporting because it relies on asset valuation. > And I'm sorry, but even if this would work, I'm still not going to be sold on the idea that the world should be lorded over by a few trillionaires from California. Do you want wealth redistribution or not? Yang wants to give individuals legal ownership of their own data and control over how it is used, so I'm not so sure that most of those California billionaires are all that fond of him anyway.
mrfusion 7y ago
It’s funny that we think preventing billionaires is easier than campaign finance reform.
o_p 7y ago
>A system that will concentrate that much power will be inherently evil, it will and does serve the needs of that few over the needs of the many. This defines pretty much every social system we ever had, unless you propose some sort of decentralized utopia, you need to trust power in the hands of a few. Money is just a vehicle of this particular system.
- danharaj 7y ago
  Decentralized industrialism is the crux of a large swathe of left libertarian ideology, such as anarchosyndicalism.
hacknat 7y ago
I agree with you that VAT by itself is regressive, but coupled with UBI it is not even close. Relative to their wealth, Rich people, effectively, do not even pay income tax. The bulk of income tax is paid by the middle class. Does that seem fair to you? I agree with you that money is power, but you are not going to stop the existence of Billionaires and Trillionaires. That would need to be a coordinated global effort.
- coredog64 7y ago
  > Relative to their wealth, Rich people, effectively, do not even pay income tax. Can you explain this, as this doesn’t appear to be backed up by IRS stats on effective rates & total revenue.
  - malandrew 7y ago
    Relative in the sense that it’s inconsequential relative to capital gains taxes. The very rich don’t make incomes. Nexos for example earns $88k a year in income.
    - malandrew 7y ago
      Nexos should be Bezos. Stupid autocorrect.
  - reissbaker 7y ago
    Wealth is not taxed. If you have a large amount of wealth, you don't need income, and it's likely that — if you do have income — your income represents a very small percentage of your net worth growth over time. Most of it is capital gains, which: 1. Are taxed at a much lower rate, and, 2. Are only taxed when the gains are "realized," e.g. when you sell at a profit. As a result, if you have a large amount of wealth, your net worth can increase dramatically while being untaxed (if you don't sell) or taxed very low (if you sell some percentage of the gains — and only the sold percentage gets taxed, the rest doesn't). Depending on your investment strategy you can also play games with taxes, e.g. when rebalancing your portfolio, try to mostly sell your shares that have lost value, so that you put a loss on the books rather than a gain and are thus untaxed (or even get tax credits). That's why Warren Buffett talks about paying less in taxes than his secretary.
datashow 7y ago
> The problem with having a handful of people be billionaires and trillionaires is that money is power, and with that amount of money you have nearly unlimited power and influence over everyone and everything. A system that will concentrate that much power will be inherently evil, it will and does serve the needs of that few over the needs of the many. It is kind of right but essentially wrong. In any society with the size of more than hundreds of people, it always has a power structure, and always has a small number of people concentrate power way more than others. It is not a problem with super rich people. Even in all the Communist countries (Soviet Union, Mao's China, etc.) where everyone is super poor and there is no millionaire, power structure and concentration of power still exists and is way more cruel than in a market-driven society. Of course UBI doesn't solve this, because there is no way to solve this. Even if you nuke the modern world to stone age, power structure and concentration of power will 100% appear again and keep growing when you have a team, a tribe, a city, a nation.
- wardnath 7y ago
  Completely agree. I would rather have hierarchies determined by free-market forces rather than a state-organized system. Corporate monopolies should be deterred by the state, but trying to cap individual success via something like a wealth tax would cause problems for the whole market.
  - etripe 7y ago
    All you're really saying with your post is you'd rather live in an oligarchy (free market players) than a democracy (the state). The free market is in no way fairer or less corrupt than elections, but it is more single-mindedly incentivised by the profit motive. I fail to see the inherent moral victory. Many people add on the mistake of thinking they will belong to the class of enlightened despots. You haven't said enough for me to tell if you're one of those.
- dwiel 7y ago
  Wouldnt that same argument apply to people fighting for democracy in the age of monarchy? Why try to get rid of the king when he will just be replaced by a president? Dont even bother. Obviously power structures and concentration of power always exist in some form, but that doesn't mean we should never try to rein it in on occassion.
chiefalchemist 7y ago
> "UBI just doesn't solve that..." It might not solve is but it's certainly a ding in the arc of the current status quo. The problem with no floor is it creates fear. Lots of it. When you fear losing your job and/or your home your view of the world gets very narrow. Your options limited. Availability of opportunity and resources cause you to make bad decisions (e.g., blaming minority X or Y for your fate). It's true UBI will not solve the power imbalance. But it can be a step in the direction of undermining the status quo.
AnthonyMouse 7y ago
> UBI just doesn't solve that Doesn't it though? You create a floor, so that anyone with a miserable job can say "screw you" and quit and go start their own business without having to worry about how they're going to make rent before the new business starts making money, and you get a lot more competition. More smaller companies instead of fewer bigger companies. And the big companies would have to pay more to get some people to not do that, so you get less inequality. How isn't that solving the problem?
- anovikov 7y ago
  Seriously there is NO WAY in the world an UBI will cover the rent - even the rent alone - in any place where it makes sense starting a business. I would imagine an UBI will be mostly used by people to exclude themselves from active workforce to "retire" in low-cost destinations. Because that will be the only thing it will really allow doing. Say you impose a super huge 30% income tax (anything above that will cause a revolt in the middle classes, and mass exodus in upper classes), that will only give an equivalent of a minimum wage to everyone (ok 20% above national minimum wage but some states have it higher)... how far does that get you?
  - jononor 7y ago
    Internet makes possible lots of businesses where one does not need to be based in a particular location to be successful.
    - anovikov 7y ago
      But it is already a fantasy for >99% of those trying. Competition is too tough and most people are absolutely unprepared and can't be prepared - it means competition with mega corporation and the insane amounts of data and brains they have to optimize themselves. Will be even more of a fantasy if new tens of millions will join.
  - rpedela 7y ago
    There are plenty of places in the US with rents in the $100s and you could start a business whether that business is a hotdog stand or a software business.
hudon 7y ago
> money is power Money isn’t power. Power is power. If Putin became bankrupt tonight, he’d still be one of the most powerful people on earth tomorrow morning. Power is the capacity to have others do what you want, including handing you their money when you need it. Case in point: how many million-dollar lottery winners ended up having any nontrivial influence on their community or state? Nearly 0.
- aetherson 7y ago
  Holding all else equal, of course it is the case that giving someone more money increases their ability to something done in the political plane. But it seems to be an article of faith in many people that money can be very simply translated into unlimited amounts of political power in a way that is I think not supported by the evidence.
  - coredog64 7y ago
    Which is why Steve Forbes won the presidency in 2000 and Bloomberg or Steyer will take it this year and hold their inaugural ball at the Amazon campus in LIC. :) As you say, money helps. But there limits to what money can do.
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  Nitzan and Bichler argue quite convincingly that capital is power - money isn't necessarily power, but money-capital absolutely is.
  - ghostwriter 7y ago
    No amount of capital (economic power) will save you from the power of the state to take it from you, should that idea arise in the minds of those who define the state policy.
    - paulddraper 7y ago
      Lobbiests + campaign finances
soulofmischief 7y ago
UBI gives incredible power to the laborer, who has leverage against unfair working conditions, and by default is past the "Safety" level of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, allowing them to develop healthy relationships and goals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs
Red_Leaves_Flyy 7y ago
how exactly is a ubi not solving rampant poverty? Maybe someone's implementation is flawed but to make an extraordinary claim like UBI can't solve poverty will require extraordinary proof. Likewise, how is ubi regressive? What would a progressive solution to poverty be?
- kingkawn 7y ago
  If the introduction of UBI is coupled with the dismantling of existing social safety net it is effectively the privatization of public welfare, and will result in all the related pitfalls.
  - hanniabu 7y ago
    It feels like you just strung together dinne fancy words and didn't provide any reasoning.
    - kingkawn 7y ago
      It boggles to imagine which of those words you found fancy Yang’s website says the plan will rely on poor people electing not to get other social safety net benefits. People will end up without healthcare and without food if there are not programs in place to address those problems specifically.
      - hanniabu 7y ago
        > found fancy I was giving you the benefit > without healthcare and without food What? I've never heard him say this and seens like something he wouldn't say given his stance on wellbeing. Also, you can use UBI for food. The only thing I've heard is people on welfare programs would be able to choose between continuing those or stopping them and switching to UBI. Nothing about healthcare and with these the people get to choose themselves.
        kingkawn 7y ago
andreilys 7y ago
“A system that will concentrate that much power will be inherently evil” It’s always puzzling to me when people equate wealth with evil. Why the unnecessary moralizing? Just say “concentrated wealth in the hands of the few has the potential to cause systemic societal harm” No need to paint it as a battle of good vs evil, it severely diminishes the substance of your point.
- kyledrake 7y ago
  Actually a lot of them do very bad things with their money that are very harmful to society, whether it's Bill Gates fraternizing with a convicted child sex trafficker, Peter Thiel platforming for racist demagogue Trump, Vinod Khosla spending unlimited amounts of money to carve out private access to beaches, or running for president and sinking a record setting amount of money on his campaign like Michael Bloomberg is doing. None of these clowns deserve to be billionaires and nothing bad will happen to them or us if a small chunk of their money is used to pay for things like single payer healthcare. But my point is that no tiny handful of people should be allowed to have that kind of power, whether they're evil or not.
  - paulddraper 7y ago
    TIL supporting the 2016 Republican presidential candidate was evil.
    - kyledrake 7y ago
      No, platforming for a racist demagogue that causes pain and suffering to millions of people so you can maybe win some Palantir contracts isn't evil at all, I'm not sure where you got that impression. It's just really solid moral judgement, I'm glad he has billions of dollars to push towards positive agendas like that, it's so good for our society to have children in cages at the border so you can win a chess game against other government defense contractors. Inspiring stuff.
      - paulddraper 7y ago

tells 7y ago

this is very inflammatory and false. The VAT is not highly regressive. Money is power but poverty stricken people literally have zero money. How are gov't "programs" going to help? democrats love "programs" because it just gives them something to show off. it hardly solves any real problems. I doubt you've lived through any sort of poverty or have felt like the walls were closing in on your life, but people live that everyday. For those that have been through it, it hardly feels like a "weird 10x play"

kyledrake 7y ago
It is not inflammatory or false. VAT taxes are regressive consumption-based taxes, and poorer people disproportionately bear the costs compared to the wealthy. It's very well established among economists https://www.quora.com/Why-is-value-added-tax-regressive https://www.quora.com/Why-is-value-added-tax-regressive > I doubt you've lived through any sort of poverty or have felt like the walls were closing in on your life, but people live that everyday. For those that have been through it, it hardly feels like a "weird 10x play" The poor and working class of this country clearly have a candidate they stand by, and it's Bernie Sanders, who is about to set a record for the largest number of small dollar contributions in US history. You won't find them at $5600 a plate dinners at Sam Altman's mansion in California. To their great credit, the working poor in this country seem much more interested in an agenda that proposes real change to systemic inequality and poverty, rather than just pouring some regressively funded UBI candy coating over the existing broken system and expecting it to not get much, much worse.
- tells 7y ago
  on the presupposition that the VAT is flat across all goods. look at Yang's plan. this is not the case. https://www.yang2020.com/what-is-freedom-dividend-faq/ https://www.yang2020.com/what-is-freedom-dividend-faq/
  - barrkel 7y ago
    VAT is a tax on goods and services. Wealth inequality comes from people owning future streams of income, not stuff; rentiers, in other words. To the degree that VAT decreases wealth inequality, it's only by harming the net present value of those future income streams. It would be better to have a more equitable distribution of ownership without harming wealth production.
    - devonkim 7y ago
      Sharing the gains in some manner is the right goal, no question. The question is what approach will be most effective. Bernie’s corporate accountability plan is thus the perhaps more direct set of proposals instead of something like the FJG and climate plan. Oddly enough, the CAP is not talked about much yet and there’s already dozens of holes in it. Maybe in 1975 it would work but corporations have moved far beyond what Bernie’s plan could accomplish. Admittedly better than nothing but the administrative overhead of this should be pushed with a massive overhaul of our federal regulatory agencies including improving the career paths of those in federal service. Yang’s got the dynamic of federal bureaucrats down correctly. It’s the same ones I went through and why I left federal service a decade ago. Bernie’s commitment to service is incredibly inspiring but relying upon other people to be more like Bernie is not a plan, nor is relying upon more executives to be like Yang is not a plan either. I’m not an either/or kind of person and see Bernie and Yang working together on legislation as a real, material step forward.

3131s 7y ago

> The problem with having a handful of people be billionaires and trillionaires is that money is power, and with that amount of money you have nearly unlimited power and influence over everyone and everything. Sure, and that's why we need a mechanism to redistribute that wealth... like a UBI. > a highly regressive VAT tax that none of these ultra wealthy people will ever pay. Yang proposes to exempt basic goods from the VAT, but more importantly, the central appeal of a VAT is that tax evasion is made more difficult! A VAT naturally creates an audit trail of both parties in every transaction where value is added. If one party is incentivized to report, for example via a tax credit for the end consumer, then everyone else in the chain of crediting is incentivized to do so also.

kyledrake 7y ago
If you're using a regressive VAT tax to pay for UBI you are not redistributing wealth, you are disproportionately taxing the poor to distribute to themselves (https://www.quora.com/Why-is-value-added-tax-regressive https://www.quora.com/Why-is-value-added-tax-regressive) much of which will be lost as the prices of goods increases to match equilibrium. Amazon won't "pay the tax" it will pass the tax along in the form of higher consumer prices. If the primary concern is tax evasion, there are many ways to improve this while still maintaining progressive taxation. And I'm sorry, but even if this would work, I'm still not going to be sold on the idea that the world should be lorded over by a few trillionaires from California.
- 3131s 7y ago
  > If you're using a regressive VAT tax to pay for UBI you are not redistributing wealth, you are disproportionately taxing the poor to distribute to themselves (https://www.quora.com/Why-is-value-added-tax-regressive https://www.quora.com/Why-is-value-added-tax-regressive) much of which will be lost as the prices of goods increases to match equilibrium. Amazon won't "pay the tax" it will pass the tax along in the form of higher consumer prices. A flat value added tax is regressive, but a VAT itself is not inherently regressive. Imagine if we have a VAT on yachts and nothing else, does that disproportionately affect the rich or the poor? That's why Yang is proposing to exempt basic goods and raise the rate on some luxury items. Even under a flat 10% VAT paired with the UBI, you would only be worse off if you spend $120,000 yearly on items with a 100% pass through (the IMF's estimates on the average pass through under a VAT are much lower than this). > If the primary concern is tax evasion, there are many ways to improve this while still maintaining progressive taxation. You are going to need to specify a better alternative then. Again, a VAT has inherent properties that make it highly auditable and therefore easier to administer. A wealth tax, in comparison, is much more subject to misreporting because it relies on asset valuation. > And I'm sorry, but even if this would work, I'm still not going to be sold on the idea that the world should be lorded over by a few trillionaires from California. Do you want wealth redistribution or not? Yang wants to give individuals legal ownership of their own data and control over how it is used, so I'm not so sure that most of those California billionaires are all that fond of him anyway.

mrfusion 7y ago

It’s funny that we think preventing billionaires is easier than campaign finance reform.

o_p 7y ago

>A system that will concentrate that much power will be inherently evil, it will and does serve the needs of that few over the needs of the many. This defines pretty much every social system we ever had, unless you propose some sort of decentralized utopia, you need to trust power in the hands of a few. Money is just a vehicle of this particular system.

danharaj 7y ago
Decentralized industrialism is the crux of a large swathe of left libertarian ideology, such as anarchosyndicalism.

hacknat 7y ago

I agree with you that VAT by itself is regressive, but coupled with UBI it is not even close. Relative to their wealth, Rich people, effectively, do not even pay income tax. The bulk of income tax is paid by the middle class. Does that seem fair to you? I agree with you that money is power, but you are not going to stop the existence of Billionaires and Trillionaires. That would need to be a coordinated global effort.

coredog64 7y ago
> Relative to their wealth, Rich people, effectively, do not even pay income tax. Can you explain this, as this doesn’t appear to be backed up by IRS stats on effective rates & total revenue.
- malandrew 7y ago
  Relative in the sense that it’s inconsequential relative to capital gains taxes. The very rich don’t make incomes. Nexos for example earns $88k a year in income.
  - malandrew 7y ago
    Nexos should be Bezos. Stupid autocorrect.
- reissbaker 7y ago
  Wealth is not taxed. If you have a large amount of wealth, you don't need income, and it's likely that — if you do have income — your income represents a very small percentage of your net worth growth over time. Most of it is capital gains, which: 1. Are taxed at a much lower rate, and, 2. Are only taxed when the gains are "realized," e.g. when you sell at a profit. As a result, if you have a large amount of wealth, your net worth can increase dramatically while being untaxed (if you don't sell) or taxed very low (if you sell some percentage of the gains — and only the sold percentage gets taxed, the rest doesn't). Depending on your investment strategy you can also play games with taxes, e.g. when rebalancing your portfolio, try to mostly sell your shares that have lost value, so that you put a loss on the books rather than a gain and are thus untaxed (or even get tax credits). That's why Warren Buffett talks about paying less in taxes than his secretary.

datashow 7y ago

> The problem with having a handful of people be billionaires and trillionaires is that money is power, and with that amount of money you have nearly unlimited power and influence over everyone and everything. A system that will concentrate that much power will be inherently evil, it will and does serve the needs of that few over the needs of the many. It is kind of right but essentially wrong. In any society with the size of more than hundreds of people, it always has a power structure, and always has a small number of people concentrate power way more than others. It is not a problem with super rich people. Even in all the Communist countries (Soviet Union, Mao's China, etc.) where everyone is super poor and there is no millionaire, power structure and concentration of power still exists and is way more cruel than in a market-driven society. Of course UBI doesn't solve this, because there is no way to solve this. Even if you nuke the modern world to stone age, power structure and concentration of power will 100% appear again and keep growing when you have a team, a tribe, a city, a nation.

wardnath 7y ago
Completely agree. I would rather have hierarchies determined by free-market forces rather than a state-organized system. Corporate monopolies should be deterred by the state, but trying to cap individual success via something like a wealth tax would cause problems for the whole market.
- etripe 7y ago
  All you're really saying with your post is you'd rather live in an oligarchy (free market players) than a democracy (the state). The free market is in no way fairer or less corrupt than elections, but it is more single-mindedly incentivised by the profit motive. I fail to see the inherent moral victory. Many people add on the mistake of thinking they will belong to the class of enlightened despots. You haven't said enough for me to tell if you're one of those.
dwiel 7y ago
Wouldnt that same argument apply to people fighting for democracy in the age of monarchy? Why try to get rid of the king when he will just be replaced by a president? Dont even bother. Obviously power structures and concentration of power always exist in some form, but that doesn't mean we should never try to rein it in on occassion.

chiefalchemist 7y ago

> "UBI just doesn't solve that..." It might not solve is but it's certainly a ding in the arc of the current status quo. The problem with no floor is it creates fear. Lots of it. When you fear losing your job and/or your home your view of the world gets very narrow. Your options limited. Availability of opportunity and resources cause you to make bad decisions (e.g., blaming minority X or Y for your fate). It's true UBI will not solve the power imbalance. But it can be a step in the direction of undermining the status quo.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago

> UBI just doesn't solve that Doesn't it though? You create a floor, so that anyone with a miserable job can say "screw you" and quit and go start their own business without having to worry about how they're going to make rent before the new business starts making money, and you get a lot more competition. More smaller companies instead of fewer bigger companies. And the big companies would have to pay more to get some people to not do that, so you get less inequality. How isn't that solving the problem?

anovikov 7y ago
Seriously there is NO WAY in the world an UBI will cover the rent - even the rent alone - in any place where it makes sense starting a business. I would imagine an UBI will be mostly used by people to exclude themselves from active workforce to "retire" in low-cost destinations. Because that will be the only thing it will really allow doing. Say you impose a super huge 30% income tax (anything above that will cause a revolt in the middle classes, and mass exodus in upper classes), that will only give an equivalent of a minimum wage to everyone (ok 20% above national minimum wage but some states have it higher)... how far does that get you?
- jononor 7y ago
  Internet makes possible lots of businesses where one does not need to be based in a particular location to be successful.
  - anovikov 7y ago
    But it is already a fantasy for >99% of those trying. Competition is too tough and most people are absolutely unprepared and can't be prepared - it means competition with mega corporation and the insane amounts of data and brains they have to optimize themselves. Will be even more of a fantasy if new tens of millions will join.
- rpedela 7y ago
  There are plenty of places in the US with rents in the $100s and you could start a business whether that business is a hotdog stand or a software business.

hudon 7y ago

> money is power Money isn’t power. Power is power. If Putin became bankrupt tonight, he’d still be one of the most powerful people on earth tomorrow morning. Power is the capacity to have others do what you want, including handing you their money when you need it. Case in point: how many million-dollar lottery winners ended up having any nontrivial influence on their community or state? Nearly 0.

aetherson 7y ago
Holding all else equal, of course it is the case that giving someone more money increases their ability to something done in the political plane. But it seems to be an article of faith in many people that money can be very simply translated into unlimited amounts of political power in a way that is I think not supported by the evidence.
- coredog64 7y ago
  Which is why Steve Forbes won the presidency in 2000 and Bloomberg or Steyer will take it this year and hold their inaugural ball at the Amazon campus in LIC. :) As you say, money helps. But there limits to what money can do.
claudiawerner 7y ago
Nitzan and Bichler argue quite convincingly that capital is power - money isn't necessarily power, but money-capital absolutely is.
- ghostwriter 7y ago
  No amount of capital (economic power) will save you from the power of the state to take it from you, should that idea arise in the minds of those who define the state policy.
  - paulddraper 7y ago
    Lobbiests + campaign finances

soulofmischief 7y ago

UBI gives incredible power to the laborer, who has leverage against unfair working conditions, and by default is past the "Safety" level of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, allowing them to develop healthy relationships and goals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs

Red_Leaves_Flyy 7y ago

how exactly is a ubi not solving rampant poverty? Maybe someone's implementation is flawed but to make an extraordinary claim like UBI can't solve poverty will require extraordinary proof. Likewise, how is ubi regressive? What would a progressive solution to poverty be?

kingkawn 7y ago
If the introduction of UBI is coupled with the dismantling of existing social safety net it is effectively the privatization of public welfare, and will result in all the related pitfalls.
- hanniabu 7y ago
  It feels like you just strung together dinne fancy words and didn't provide any reasoning.
  - kingkawn 7y ago
    It boggles to imagine which of those words you found fancy Yang’s website says the plan will rely on poor people electing not to get other social safety net benefits. People will end up without healthcare and without food if there are not programs in place to address those problems specifically.
    - hanniabu 7y ago
      > found fancy I was giving you the benefit > without healthcare and without food What? I've never heard him say this and seens like something he wouldn't say given his stance on wellbeing. Also, you can use UBI for food. The only thing I've heard is people on welfare programs would be able to choose between continuing those or stopping them and switching to UBI. Nothing about healthcare and with these the people get to choose themselves.
      - kingkawn 7y ago

andreilys 7y ago

“A system that will concentrate that much power will be inherently evil” It’s always puzzling to me when people equate wealth with evil. Why the unnecessary moralizing? Just say “concentrated wealth in the hands of the few has the potential to cause systemic societal harm” No need to paint it as a battle of good vs evil, it severely diminishes the substance of your point.

kyledrake 7y ago
Actually a lot of them do very bad things with their money that are very harmful to society, whether it's Bill Gates fraternizing with a convicted child sex trafficker, Peter Thiel platforming for racist demagogue Trump, Vinod Khosla spending unlimited amounts of money to carve out private access to beaches, or running for president and sinking a record setting amount of money on his campaign like Michael Bloomberg is doing. None of these clowns deserve to be billionaires and nothing bad will happen to them or us if a small chunk of their money is used to pay for things like single payer healthcare. But my point is that no tiny handful of people should be allowed to have that kind of power, whether they're evil or not.
- paulddraper 7y ago
  TIL supporting the 2016 Republican presidential candidate was evil.
  - kyledrake 7y ago
    No, platforming for a racist demagogue that causes pain and suffering to millions of people so you can maybe win some Palantir contracts isn't evil at all, I'm not sure where you got that impression. It's just really solid moral judgement, I'm glad he has billions of dollars to push towards positive agendas like that, it's so good for our society to have children in cages at the border so you can win a chess game against other government defense contractors. Inspiring stuff.
    - paulddraper 7y ago