3 ms·

Its called redistribution. I understand and appreciate that that answer is not palatable to many people but that is the clear answer.

missedthecue 7y ago
Even if you took all the money from all the billionaires, and we're assuming frictionless transaction and 100% liquidity, you can't afford it for more than a couple years. The money just runs out.
- petermcneeley 7y ago
  USA gpd per capita is ~60k a year right? And your saying 12k per year per capita is impossible?
  - missedthecue 7y ago
    It's certainly possible to tax the average person $1050 monthly in order to pay that average person $1000 every month, but i really just don't see the point. There are just not enough rich people to transfer $2.5 trillion from annually.
    - petermcneeley 7y ago
      I think your arguing against some position that I am not even suggesting. You think im saying "if we took the money of billionaires we would have enough to give the whole country 1k/month forever" Im suggesting that there is enough money when you think in totality so this is merely a question of how comfortable you are with redistribution. Your saying 2.5 trillion annually; ok thats only like 12% of GDP. It is also completely logical that in the 21 century that only about 10% of value generated is enough to keep everyone fed clothed and sheltered.
      - missedthecue 7y ago
        You're saying redistribution. Meaning taking money from people with more to give to people with less. (I assume youre not just talking about moving figures around but leaving everyone with the same amount in the end). I'm saying there are not enough people with more than people less to provide that $12,000 transfer to each person in a way that benefits most people.
        petermcneeley 7y ago
        https://www.statista.com/statistics/203183/percentage-distribution-of-household-income-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/203183/percentage-distri... If you just took 20% of people making over 150k it would be enough to give 1k a month to the bottom 50%. (and yes i understand this is household) And this of course is the silly idea that your giving people making 50k a year 12k more for some reason. This also doesnt include the real money up at the top top end. It also doesnt include any wealth transfers (scary) I think (with respect) you just dont realize how much wealth is out there.
        missedthecue 7y ago
        But UBI doesnt only pay those making less than the median
        petermcneeley 7y ago
        Sure but using any definition you want at some point you will be at the end of the distribution that will be contributing not gaining from UBI. This function could be described as a graduated income tax. (Sure on your tax form you might be getting 12k a year in but your getting like 30k going out for UBI) I think you are describing some system that is sorta some sorta economically inconsistent plan. Everyone gets 1k a month and nobody pays for it doesnt make economic sense. The people that push UBI dont think in these illogical ways. They know very well that some people will have to pay for it. Some people wont see any gain. And some people will see gain. Your confused about how this system is a win for everyone. Its not! Thats what I said at top ; its redistributive.

missedthecue 7y ago

Even if you took all the money from all the billionaires, and we're assuming frictionless transaction and 100% liquidity, you can't afford it for more than a couple years. The money just runs out.

petermcneeley 7y ago
USA gpd per capita is ~60k a year right? And your saying 12k per year per capita is impossible?
- missedthecue 7y ago
  It's certainly possible to tax the average person $1050 monthly in order to pay that average person $1000 every month, but i really just don't see the point. There are just not enough rich people to transfer $2.5 trillion from annually.
  - petermcneeley 7y ago
    I think your arguing against some position that I am not even suggesting. You think im saying "if we took the money of billionaires we would have enough to give the whole country 1k/month forever" Im suggesting that there is enough money when you think in totality so this is merely a question of how comfortable you are with redistribution. Your saying 2.5 trillion annually; ok thats only like 12% of GDP. It is also completely logical that in the 21 century that only about 10% of value generated is enough to keep everyone fed clothed and sheltered.
    - missedthecue 7y ago
      You're saying redistribution. Meaning taking money from people with more to give to people with less. (I assume youre not just talking about moving figures around but leaving everyone with the same amount in the end). I'm saying there are not enough people with more than people less to provide that $12,000 transfer to each person in a way that benefits most people.
      - petermcneeley 7y ago
        https://www.statista.com/statistics/203183/percentage-distribution-of-household-income-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/203183/percentage-distri... If you just took 20% of people making over 150k it would be enough to give 1k a month to the bottom 50%. (and yes i understand this is household) And this of course is the silly idea that your giving people making 50k a year 12k more for some reason. This also doesnt include the real money up at the top top end. It also doesnt include any wealth transfers (scary) I think (with respect) you just dont realize how much wealth is out there.
        missedthecue 7y ago
        But UBI doesnt only pay those making less than the median
        petermcneeley 7y ago
        Sure but using any definition you want at some point you will be at the end of the distribution that will be contributing not gaining from UBI. This function could be described as a graduated income tax. (Sure on your tax form you might be getting 12k a year in but your getting like 30k going out for UBI) I think you are describing some system that is sorta some sorta economically inconsistent plan. Everyone gets 1k a month and nobody pays for it doesnt make economic sense. The people that push UBI dont think in these illogical ways. They know very well that some people will have to pay for it. Some people wont see any gain. And some people will see gain. Your confused about how this system is a win for everyone. Its not! Thats what I said at top ; its redistributive.