6 ms·

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 p

• 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?
    • spyckie2 6y ago
      > Ever heard of tax deductible donations? Tax deductible donations have the same intent but is a poor policy implementation for rich people who already pay so little in taxes. It doesn't accomplish the effect of redistribution of wealth because so little redistribution actually happens. We want our wealth to return social good, not extra wealth -> that's the point of the policy. I should have been more explicit that I was proposing a wealth transfer alternative to UBI, which is to create privatized social funds that rich people are effectively forced to contribute money to or lose their wealth significantly over time. > 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 > instead of 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? Uh... who do you think runs the state? Rich people. And if you really think the state is the perfect ideal father figure that cares for all of its people... please tell me where you live so I can move there too. "The state", in most of human history, is woefully inept at making good, centralized decisions, and it's decentralization (which is btw a UBI principle) that has given us equal rights, fairness, and societal mobility. For most of history, anytime you aggregate power to a central state, bad things happen. Back to my point though, the interesting thing about social funds is that they can be privatized and form their own market economies. For instance, Elon musk could use his social fund to combat climate change. Bill gates is already doing this to tackle large humanity issues. Warren buffet will probably use it to help middle america. Jeff Bezos... will probably give half of the fund to his wife. But it's a pretty interesting policy that goes with the spirit of the American ideal which puts the power of changing the world into the individual's hand rather than centralizing it into the government, which is why I described wealth transfer to a government as "un-American". Social funds with a committed vision towards non profit activities is really not a bad idea the more I think about it. Some rich people will definitely fund UBI with it.
• agent008t 6y ago
  It does not matter what form that wealth has. You can sell it and convert the wealth to another form. That doesn't change the fact that if you wanted to, you could draw a sum comparable to UBI from it indefinitely - that is, for generations.
  • akuji1993 6y ago
    You are correct, but the point is that this requires conversion of wealth. While I agree with the argument that living rent-free is a form of wealth, it's not the same as a controlled monthly payment. Also this point only applies to the median family with existing property wealth. Not the poor family that has no inheritance. UBI is designed to serve poor families, not the median or upper class families.