5 ms·

How is it that people are both against generational wealth which is a sort of a UBI on a family level (£500k, which is not too far from median household wealth

How is it that people are both against generational wealth which is a sort of a UBI on a family level (£500k, which is not too far from median household wealth in the UK, means you could roughly draw £15'000/year in perpetuity), and for UBI on a national level?

guerrilla 6y ago
Because they're in favor of equality and not inequality? The key being that UBI would eventually be universal.
simonh 6y ago
Median doesn't mean everybody.
akuji1993 6y ago
Median household wealth is actually at £280k according to government resources, which would about half your 15k to 7.5k roughly. Also, this is not money, it's property value. If you take a look at the wealth of the average population, two thirds are either pensions or property wealth. This is longterm money which I cannot draw on until retired (and most certainly won't affect my children) and property which I might depend on and therefore not be able to turn into money. Also people are largely not against generational wealth, they're just demanding that rich people pay their fair share when inherting property wealth to their children. Taxing the top 10% correctly and without fraud would bring in enough cash to support the bottom 30% a lot more through public housing, health care and childcare support. A UBI for contrast, is direct payment to my bank account that I can use however I like, it's not locked by its form of wealth. I CAN use that payment to save more of my own money to eventually get property wealth, but it gives the people at the bottom possibilities that they won't have without it. Also, poor people don't give a fuck about the median household wealth. Because they won't have any. The UBI however applies to all, poor and rich alike, supporting poor families a lot more than property wealth they don't have.
- spyckie2 6y ago
  > If you take a look at the wealth of the average population, two thirds are either pensions or property wealth. This is longterm money which I cannot draw on until retired (and most certainly won't affect my children) and property which I might depend on and therefore not be able to turn into money. Having to not pay rent is a form of income though. > Also people are largely not against generational wealth, they're just demanding that rich people pay their fair share when inheriting property wealth to their children. Taxing the top 10% correctly and without fraud would bring in enough cash to support the bottom 30% a lot more through public housing, health care and childcare support. Another way to say it is that the top 10% got there because they use their money to make more money. Countries need their money to make more money but not at the cost of society falling apart, so we probably need to reallocate the usage of that money to support a better society overall rather than to just make more money. What would be interesting is to force rich people to invest in social efforts with their money. Instead of taxing them and taking away money from them (which is quite un-American), instead any monetary amount above X should have some percentage of it devoted to social funds or have to pay a penalty fee (which is effectively a tax) if they don't.
  - akuji1993 6y ago
    > What would be interesting is to force rich people to invest in social efforts with their money. Ever heard of tax deductible donations? Also, what makes you think that a private person is better at deciding where to put their money and has less inclination to donate this money to a social cause that has direct positive outcome for them (for example, investing in their already well-financed community and being the 'hero of the town', gaining also political power that way) instead of letting a state, capable of overseeing ALL of its people redistribute the taxed money to the poorest communities or those that need the help the most in some area? Edit: And I didn't even touch on this point, because it's a whole other discussion but: > Another way to say it is that the top 10% got there because they use their money to make more money. Wealthy people are increasing their wealth through financial tools without contributing anything to society. Also, except for a small number of family or solo entrepreneurs, they didn't get rich on their own. They had employees. Most of those people did not benefit like the business owner did, while they actually did the work. So is it really that unjustified to tax this money and redistribute it to the poor and the workers?
tonyedgecombe 6y ago
Half of that wealth is in property, you can’t draw an income from it if you need somewhere to live. It isn’t evenly speed either, most of it is concentrated in the SE and amongst the older generations. Interestingly many of those people do get UBI, it’s called a pension.

guerrilla 6y ago

Because they're in favor of equality and not inequality? The key being that UBI would eventually be universal.

simonh 6y ago

Median doesn't mean everybody.

akuji1993 6y ago

Median household wealth is actually at £280k according to government resources, which would about half your 15k to 7.5k roughly. Also, this is not money, it's property value. If you take a look at the wealth of the average population, two thirds are either pensions or property wealth. This is longterm money which I cannot draw on until retired (and most certainly won't affect my children) and property which I might depend on and therefore not be able to turn into money. Also people are largely not against generational wealth, they're just demanding that rich people pay their fair share when inherting property wealth to their children. Taxing the top 10% correctly and without fraud would bring in enough cash to support the bottom 30% a lot more through public housing, health care and childcare support. A UBI for contrast, is direct payment to my bank account that I can use however I like, it's not locked by its form of wealth. I CAN use that payment to save more of my own money to eventually get property wealth, but it gives the people at the bottom possibilities that they won't have without it. Also, poor people don't give a fuck about the median household wealth. Because they won't have any. The UBI however applies to all, poor and rich alike, supporting poor families a lot more than property wealth they don't have.

spyckie2 6y ago
> If you take a look at the wealth of the average population, two thirds are either pensions or property wealth. This is longterm money which I cannot draw on until retired (and most certainly won't affect my children) and property which I might depend on and therefore not be able to turn into money. Having to not pay rent is a form of income though. > Also people are largely not against generational wealth, they're just demanding that rich people pay their fair share when inheriting property wealth to their children. Taxing the top 10% correctly and without fraud would bring in enough cash to support the bottom 30% a lot more through public housing, health care and childcare support. Another way to say it is that the top 10% got there because they use their money to make more money. Countries need their money to make more money but not at the cost of society falling apart, so we probably need to reallocate the usage of that money to support a better society overall rather than to just make more money. What would be interesting is to force rich people to invest in social efforts with their money. Instead of taxing them and taking away money from them (which is quite un-American), instead any monetary amount above X should have some percentage of it devoted to social funds or have to pay a penalty fee (which is effectively a tax) if they don't.
- akuji1993 6y ago
  > What would be interesting is to force rich people to invest in social efforts with their money. Ever heard of tax deductible donations? Also, what makes you think that a private person is better at deciding where to put their money and has less inclination to donate this money to a social cause that has direct positive outcome for them (for example, investing in their already well-financed community and being the 'hero of the town', gaining also political power that way) instead of letting a state, capable of overseeing ALL of its people redistribute the taxed money to the poorest communities or those that need the help the most in some area? Edit: And I didn't even touch on this point, because it's a whole other discussion but: > Another way to say it is that the top 10% got there because they use their money to make more money. Wealthy people are increasing their wealth through financial tools without contributing anything to society. Also, except for a small number of family or solo entrepreneurs, they didn't get rich on their own. They had employees. Most of those people did not benefit like the business owner did, while they actually did the work. So is it really that unjustified to tax this money and redistribute it to the poor and the workers?

tonyedgecombe 6y ago

Half of that wealth is in property, you can’t draw an income from it if you need somewhere to live. It isn’t evenly speed either, most of it is concentrated in the SE and amongst the older generations. Interestingly many of those people do get UBI, it’s called a pension.