4 ms·

No, because high-income people still have to be net payers. Otherwise, where does the money come from?

lidHanteyk 7y ago
It is not a problem if rich people resent having to pay money into the government in order to keep the system running. Rich people are only rich because the government maintains the monetary system. Being so rich that one resents the very government that establishes their riches is a feature, not a bug. Edit: As usual for rapid downvotes on polite posts, do downvoters care to explain themselves? Or is today a day for irrationally defending the rich?
- aeternum 7y ago
  It is generally not the rich that resent it. The rich simply see taxes as a cost of doing business that they should attempt to minimize as they would any cost. If you look at welfare, those that resent it most are the people that are just over the threshold to receive it. They see themselves as significantly better than those on welfare who are lazy and gaming the system.
  - lidHanteyk 7y ago
    Okay, but we're talking about UBI, and in UBI systems, there aren't any people that are just barely over the threshold. I don't really see folks resenting welfare. I see a whole lot of folks who have probably never experienced welfare, though, and who are ready to judge those who do receive it. I don't consider this a reasonable line of thought, though, but rather an indicator of bigotry and poor empathy.
    - aeternum 7y ago
      The rich have no reason to resent the system, they've done quite well through it, and the vast majority will treat any new tax as simply a cost to minimize. From a game-theory POV, they act predictably. In contrast, low-income locales often do not act logically: https://thefederalist.com/2015/12/01/why-poor-locales-vote-for-people-who-promise-to-slash-welfare/ https://thefederalist.com/2015/12/01/why-poor-locales-vote-f... The working poor resent the non-working poor for being lazy and freeloading. As you mentioned, bigotry also plays a role in this. Both groups often resent the government for giving them just enough to subsist but not enough to lift their communities out of poverty. I don't see UBI as changing any of that. Eliminating the threshold is good, but it won't address this underlying resentment.
      - lidHanteyk 7y ago
        Politely, I don't think that you're actually talking to anybody in "the [non-]working poor". The article you linked commits a dire mistake: They claim that a government that took care of its lazy and poor would encourage the poor to be lazier and the lazy to be poorer, but when has there ever been such a government that actually does care for its lazy and poor? Their claim is without evidence and based upon a style of governance that hasn't yet been tried. In other words, their claim is anti-inductive and generates a self-fulfilling prophecy. Your last two paragraphs are in conflict. UBI would lift people out of poverty in ways that existing welfare programs don't, and it's via the same effect I pointed out before: UBI's effects taper off slowly as people improve their situations, rather than producing more all-or-nothing thresholds which trap people. The bigotry that I am complaining about is the bigotry that you exhibit: That of putting words and actions in the mouths of the poor. I wonder whether you have ever lived below the poverty line.
        aeternum 7y ago
        Interesting points, thanks for the response. I haven't had the experience of living below the poverty line.
Reedx 7y ago
Well, eventually everyone will have the experience of getting UBI when they turn 18, prior to achieving high income. It will just be something everyone has from the start of adulthood and an accepted part of reality. Which leads to me think that it'd be a temporary issue and will naturally resolve itself over time.

It is not a problem if rich people resent having to pay money into the government in order to keep the system running. Rich people are only rich because the government maintains the monetary system. Being so rich that one resents the very government that establishes their riches is a feature, not a bug. Edit: As usual for rapid downvotes on polite posts, do downvoters care to explain themselves? Or is today a day for irrationally defending the rich?

aeternum 7y ago
It is generally not the rich that resent it. The rich simply see taxes as a cost of doing business that they should attempt to minimize as they would any cost. If you look at welfare, those that resent it most are the people that are just over the threshold to receive it. They see themselves as significantly better than those on welfare who are lazy and gaming the system.
- lidHanteyk 7y ago
  Okay, but we're talking about UBI, and in UBI systems, there aren't any people that are just barely over the threshold. I don't really see folks resenting welfare. I see a whole lot of folks who have probably never experienced welfare, though, and who are ready to judge those who do receive it. I don't consider this a reasonable line of thought, though, but rather an indicator of bigotry and poor empathy.
  - aeternum 7y ago
    The rich have no reason to resent the system, they've done quite well through it, and the vast majority will treat any new tax as simply a cost to minimize. From a game-theory POV, they act predictably. In contrast, low-income locales often do not act logically: https://thefederalist.com/2015/12/01/why-poor-locales-vote-for-people-who-promise-to-slash-welfare/ https://thefederalist.com/2015/12/01/why-poor-locales-vote-f... The working poor resent the non-working poor for being lazy and freeloading. As you mentioned, bigotry also plays a role in this. Both groups often resent the government for giving them just enough to subsist but not enough to lift their communities out of poverty. I don't see UBI as changing any of that. Eliminating the threshold is good, but it won't address this underlying resentment.
    - lidHanteyk 7y ago
      Politely, I don't think that you're actually talking to anybody in "the [non-]working poor". The article you linked commits a dire mistake: They claim that a government that took care of its lazy and poor would encourage the poor to be lazier and the lazy to be poorer, but when has there ever been such a government that actually does care for its lazy and poor? Their claim is without evidence and based upon a style of governance that hasn't yet been tried. In other words, their claim is anti-inductive and generates a self-fulfilling prophecy. Your last two paragraphs are in conflict. UBI would lift people out of poverty in ways that existing welfare programs don't, and it's via the same effect I pointed out before: UBI's effects taper off slowly as people improve their situations, rather than producing more all-or-nothing thresholds which trap people. The bigotry that I am complaining about is the bigotry that you exhibit: That of putting words and actions in the mouths of the poor. I wonder whether you have ever lived below the poverty line.
      - aeternum 7y ago
        Interesting points, thanks for the response. I haven't had the experience of living below the poverty line.

Reedx 7y ago

Well, eventually everyone will have the experience of getting UBI when they turn 18, prior to achieving high income. It will just be something everyone has from the start of adulthood and an accepted part of reality. Which leads to me think that it'd be a temporary issue and will naturally resolve itself over time.