7 ms·

The only issue is that even "common sense" socialism doesn't work in the long run. All generous welfare systems run on unfunded liabilities. That amounts to a P

The only issue is that even "common sense" socialism doesn't work in the long run. All generous welfare systems run on unfunded liabilities. That amounts to a Ponzi scheme, which will collapse along with the birthrate. If all these goals were attainable at the same time, capitalism would happily sell it to people. Keep in mind, in the US, there's neither capitalism nor socialism. There's the worst of both worlds. Virtually all political reform can be sabotaged by crying "socialism!", but corporate welfare goes through unchallenged.

Spearchucker 7y ago
There's a halfway house. Give everybody a basic living wage. If somebody wants to do more, sich as being a doctor, engineer or farmer, then pay them commensurately more. Change taxation to suit.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  I'm all in favor of a negative income tax. In turn, get rid of all the entitlements and all the red tape.
- uk_programmer 7y ago
  No. It is wrong to take from those who want to work to give to those that don't want to. I already pay almost good portion of my earnings to the government to see it squandered on nonsense (e.g. look up the HS2 project in the UK). I am just about to buy property (I've been working now for 20 years and 15 as a software engineer), If I hadn't been paying as much tax I could have bought a property years ago. Having a form of UBI will increase the tax burden on medium to high earners such as myself. I simply don't believe it is ethical to offer UBI i.e. you are taking my earnings to fund those that unwilling to work, even if it is a tiny percentage it is still wrong on principle. I don't mind my taxes providing a support mechanism for those that are unable to work due to a disability, illness or simply becoming too old to work or have become unemployed for no fault of their own (e.g. business foreclosed).
  - gridlockd 7y ago
    > No. It is wrong to take from those who want to work to give to those that don't want to. It's also wrong to maintain a poorly working system just to prevent that scenario. Most money goes to corporate welfare to maintain jobs that should not exist. I'm not just talking about taxes, I'm talking about government debt, which dwarves tax revenue. It's good if people want to work, but if they perform useless work, they're better off receiving money for nothing and maybe educate themselves. That's strictly less wasteful. > I am just about to buy property (I've been working now for 20 years and 15 as a software engineer), If I hadn't been paying as much tax I could have bought a property years ago. If property prices in the UK weren't inflated by debt-financed monetary policy served to protect those who already own them, you could've also bought a property years ago. > I don't mind my taxes providing a support mechanism for those that are unable to work due to a disability, illness or simply becoming too old to work or have become unemployed for no fault of their own (e.g. business foreclosed). This amounts to a huge bureaucracy to determine who and who isn't entitled. Inevitably, some people fall through the cracks. Other people game the system. It's not going to be fair either way. Just incentivize people to work and they will work. If people know they can fall back to a modest basic income, they will be able to take risks. They will be able to refuse jobs that exploit them. They will not be put to shame standing in line at the unemployment office.
    - uk_programmer 7y ago
      > It's also wrong to maintain a poorly working system just to prevent that scenario. I agree. But that still doesn't mean you have a right to take from those (through the form of taxes) to give to those that are unwilling to work. > It's good if people want to work, but if they perform useless work, they're better off receiving money for nothing and maybe educate themselves. That's strictly less wasteful. I had a job and went to university, I unloaded lorries in a warehouse it was very boring. I still spend a lot of my time outside of work reading, coding etc. People typically have 4-6 hours plus the weekend so another 32 hours to educate themselves, yet most choose their time watching netflix, playing theirs Playstation etc, going to the bar (nothing wrong with those in themselves btw). Online courses are inexpensive these days and it is literally at your fingertips. Before there were online courses people used to go to night schools to learn. The opportunities are there but people choose not to pursue them, that is up to them. > If property prices in the UK weren't inflated by debt-financed monetary policy served to protect those who already own them, you could've also bought a property years ago. There are many reasons why property prices in the UK are ridiculous. However if wasn't taxed to the high heavens I would have been able to afford it sooner regardless of why the prices were high. In any event, it was just an example of how I could have spent my money differently that would have directly benefited me. > If people know they can fall back to a modest basic income, I run my own business, I took a risk. I didn't need the government to help me. The willingness to take risks and better yourself doesn't need the government to be involved. >They will be able to refuse jobs that exploit them. I hate it when people use this rationale. You get paid for going to work. You have plenty of rights at work. You are not exploited. You sign up willingly to work. It isn't exploitation. I don't buy into this whole "capitalism exploits the workers" marxist thought process.
maeln 7y ago
> The only issue is that even "common sense" socialism doesn't work in the long run. All generous welfare systems run on unfunded liabilities. That amounts to a Ponzi scheme, which will collapse along with the birthrate. I am not sure I understand your point. "common sense" socialism has been more or less in use in Europe for decades. It does evolve from time to time and depending on the political climate and economy, it can face some financial issue, but it has been in used for at least as long as the end of WWII.

Spearchucker 7y ago

There's a halfway house. Give everybody a basic living wage. If somebody wants to do more, sich as being a doctor, engineer or farmer, then pay them commensurately more. Change taxation to suit.

gridlockd 7y ago
I'm all in favor of a negative income tax. In turn, get rid of all the entitlements and all the red tape.
uk_programmer 7y ago
No. It is wrong to take from those who want to work to give to those that don't want to. I already pay almost good portion of my earnings to the government to see it squandered on nonsense (e.g. look up the HS2 project in the UK). I am just about to buy property (I've been working now for 20 years and 15 as a software engineer), If I hadn't been paying as much tax I could have bought a property years ago. Having a form of UBI will increase the tax burden on medium to high earners such as myself. I simply don't believe it is ethical to offer UBI i.e. you are taking my earnings to fund those that unwilling to work, even if it is a tiny percentage it is still wrong on principle. I don't mind my taxes providing a support mechanism for those that are unable to work due to a disability, illness or simply becoming too old to work or have become unemployed for no fault of their own (e.g. business foreclosed).
- gridlockd 7y ago
  > No. It is wrong to take from those who want to work to give to those that don't want to. It's also wrong to maintain a poorly working system just to prevent that scenario. Most money goes to corporate welfare to maintain jobs that should not exist. I'm not just talking about taxes, I'm talking about government debt, which dwarves tax revenue. It's good if people want to work, but if they perform useless work, they're better off receiving money for nothing and maybe educate themselves. That's strictly less wasteful. > I am just about to buy property (I've been working now for 20 years and 15 as a software engineer), If I hadn't been paying as much tax I could have bought a property years ago. If property prices in the UK weren't inflated by debt-financed monetary policy served to protect those who already own them, you could've also bought a property years ago. > I don't mind my taxes providing a support mechanism for those that are unable to work due to a disability, illness or simply becoming too old to work or have become unemployed for no fault of their own (e.g. business foreclosed). This amounts to a huge bureaucracy to determine who and who isn't entitled. Inevitably, some people fall through the cracks. Other people game the system. It's not going to be fair either way. Just incentivize people to work and they will work. If people know they can fall back to a modest basic income, they will be able to take risks. They will be able to refuse jobs that exploit them. They will not be put to shame standing in line at the unemployment office.
  - uk_programmer 7y ago
    > It's also wrong to maintain a poorly working system just to prevent that scenario. I agree. But that still doesn't mean you have a right to take from those (through the form of taxes) to give to those that are unwilling to work. > It's good if people want to work, but if they perform useless work, they're better off receiving money for nothing and maybe educate themselves. That's strictly less wasteful. I had a job and went to university, I unloaded lorries in a warehouse it was very boring. I still spend a lot of my time outside of work reading, coding etc. People typically have 4-6 hours plus the weekend so another 32 hours to educate themselves, yet most choose their time watching netflix, playing theirs Playstation etc, going to the bar (nothing wrong with those in themselves btw). Online courses are inexpensive these days and it is literally at your fingertips. Before there were online courses people used to go to night schools to learn. The opportunities are there but people choose not to pursue them, that is up to them. > If property prices in the UK weren't inflated by debt-financed monetary policy served to protect those who already own them, you could've also bought a property years ago. There are many reasons why property prices in the UK are ridiculous. However if wasn't taxed to the high heavens I would have been able to afford it sooner regardless of why the prices were high. In any event, it was just an example of how I could have spent my money differently that would have directly benefited me. > If people know they can fall back to a modest basic income, I run my own business, I took a risk. I didn't need the government to help me. The willingness to take risks and better yourself doesn't need the government to be involved. >They will be able to refuse jobs that exploit them. I hate it when people use this rationale. You get paid for going to work. You have plenty of rights at work. You are not exploited. You sign up willingly to work. It isn't exploitation. I don't buy into this whole "capitalism exploits the workers" marxist thought process.

maeln 7y ago

> The only issue is that even "common sense" socialism doesn't work in the long run. All generous welfare systems run on unfunded liabilities. That amounts to a Ponzi scheme, which will collapse along with the birthrate. I am not sure I understand your point. "common sense" socialism has been more or less in use in Europe for decades. It does evolve from time to time and depending on the political climate and economy, it can face some financial issue, but it has been in used for at least as long as the end of WWII.