5 ms·

without knowing anything about it I'd think that our system would be working better with UBI if it was randomized and switching between citizens, would make sen

without knowing anything about it I'd think that our system would be working better with UBI if it was randomized and switching between citizens, would make sense to exclude everyone who is already a millionaire or something. So if you pull it, you get 4-8 years to build a business with the money, or do whatever u want, and then the money goes to someone else. That way it wouldn't just be hyper inflationary. If you give everybody more money, nobody has more money. Capitalism is built on inequality.

HighlandSpring 6y ago
Oh there'll still be inequality, don't worry about it :)
tenebrisalietum 6y ago
Things are still unequal with UBI - if you get $2k a month, billionaires are still billionaries. It can make being poor less dangerous; e.g. homelessness, car repossession, lack of basic necessities can stop being a thing. I sometimes think really that a good alternative would be Universal Protected Net Worth. Maybe things would be better if there was some floor of money and assets below which no court or legal proceeding could take from you, including taxes, fines, bail, judgements, seizures, forfeitures, etc. I don't know how that would work in practice.
- winstonewert 6y ago
  The Mosaic law actually has something kind of like this where you can't lose ownership of your allotted farmland. Thus, at minimum, everyone owns a valuable asset and thus some net worth. (Data is sparse on whether this law was every actually followed or the effects.)
- fastball 6y ago
  Universal Protected Net Worth sounds unbelievably prone to abuse. One of the best things about UBI is that it is unabusable (except with faking existence of people, which can be used to abuse literally any system).
- tom_mellior 6y ago
  The Austrian Pirate Party's UBI model specifically states (or stated, last time I checked) that the monthly UBI payment should be unseizable.
skybrian 6y ago
tldr: If you're worried about the high cost or the efficiency of UBI, you could fix it with taxes. If we are just talking about giving cash as charitable donations, smaller-scale experiments about giving people cash tell us what we need to know about the effects. But at large scale, yes, we will have to also consider the effect of whatever taxes are used to counter the increase in the money supply. This isn't an immediate concern considering very low inflation, zero interest rates, and a depressed economy, but might eventually become an issue, someday. The thing is, you could combine UBI with any tax, so that means there are a huge number of possible policies. My favorites are a carbon tax along with making income tax more progressive, but there are others. If much of the benefit of UBI is earlier in life and the taxes are paid somewhat later (at higher income), then this has similar effects to a loan. If the benefits happen after peak income (in retirement) then it's more like forced savings. It's also similar to an insurance scheme. On net, some people may never benefit due to always having a good income and paying more in taxes than they get back, but it still reduces your risk if you somehow lose your income.
- core-questions 6y ago
  > you could fix it with taxes Someone still has to work to produce the food that UBI wastrels consume. Please, explain to me why we should feed everyone for free? What gives them the right to commandeer someone else's labour while they languish? All of these schemes to shift taxes here and burdens there ultimately just have the effect of making it so that the people who do work and do produce value are shouldering the burden for everyone else. You can print money, but you cannot print calories.
  - CuriousSkeptic 6y ago
    One example argument I find interesting is that people actually have equal rights to our environment and our commons. So if we are to have such institutions as private property and similar rights to exclusivity, those excluded should be justly compensated for being excluded. Edit: To clarify. Take John Locke, he argues that when you mix your labor with nature you should have right to the result of that labor, but that you can only take from nature what is not needed by anyone else. One could also extend from that argument that one should not have the right to destroy that which is needed either (think pollution). So be it land value taxes or carbon taxes, you can argue that some compensations is just.
fastball 6y ago
Capitalism is built on private ownership, not inequality.

HighlandSpring 6y ago

Oh there'll still be inequality, don't worry about it :)

tenebrisalietum 6y ago

Things are still unequal with UBI - if you get $2k a month, billionaires are still billionaries. It can make being poor less dangerous; e.g. homelessness, car repossession, lack of basic necessities can stop being a thing. I sometimes think really that a good alternative would be Universal Protected Net Worth. Maybe things would be better if there was some floor of money and assets below which no court or legal proceeding could take from you, including taxes, fines, bail, judgements, seizures, forfeitures, etc. I don't know how that would work in practice.

winstonewert 6y ago
The Mosaic law actually has something kind of like this where you can't lose ownership of your allotted farmland. Thus, at minimum, everyone owns a valuable asset and thus some net worth. (Data is sparse on whether this law was every actually followed or the effects.)
fastball 6y ago
Universal Protected Net Worth sounds unbelievably prone to abuse. One of the best things about UBI is that it is unabusable (except with faking existence of people, which can be used to abuse literally any system).
tom_mellior 6y ago
The Austrian Pirate Party's UBI model specifically states (or stated, last time I checked) that the monthly UBI payment should be unseizable.

skybrian 6y ago

tldr: If you're worried about the high cost or the efficiency of UBI, you could fix it with taxes. If we are just talking about giving cash as charitable donations, smaller-scale experiments about giving people cash tell us what we need to know about the effects. But at large scale, yes, we will have to also consider the effect of whatever taxes are used to counter the increase in the money supply. This isn't an immediate concern considering very low inflation, zero interest rates, and a depressed economy, but might eventually become an issue, someday. The thing is, you could combine UBI with any tax, so that means there are a huge number of possible policies. My favorites are a carbon tax along with making income tax more progressive, but there are others. If much of the benefit of UBI is earlier in life and the taxes are paid somewhat later (at higher income), then this has similar effects to a loan. If the benefits happen after peak income (in retirement) then it's more like forced savings. It's also similar to an insurance scheme. On net, some people may never benefit due to always having a good income and paying more in taxes than they get back, but it still reduces your risk if you somehow lose your income.

core-questions 6y ago
> you could fix it with taxes Someone still has to work to produce the food that UBI wastrels consume. Please, explain to me why we should feed everyone for free? What gives them the right to commandeer someone else's labour while they languish? All of these schemes to shift taxes here and burdens there ultimately just have the effect of making it so that the people who do work and do produce value are shouldering the burden for everyone else. You can print money, but you cannot print calories.
- CuriousSkeptic 6y ago
  One example argument I find interesting is that people actually have equal rights to our environment and our commons. So if we are to have such institutions as private property and similar rights to exclusivity, those excluded should be justly compensated for being excluded. Edit: To clarify. Take John Locke, he argues that when you mix your labor with nature you should have right to the result of that labor, but that you can only take from nature what is not needed by anyone else. One could also extend from that argument that one should not have the right to destroy that which is needed either (think pollution). So be it land value taxes or carbon taxes, you can argue that some compensations is just.

fastball 6y ago

Capitalism is built on private ownership, not inequality.