6 ms·

> 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

by 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.
- akuji1993 6y ago
  > 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 Germany. I'd also add that the countries doing the most for their citizens are probably the Nordic European States plus Germany and France. All of them Social Democracies, so what Americans would probably call a "strong state" oriented approach. I have a lot to critize about my own country, but the social support structures are probably still among the best in the world only toppled by aforementioned Nordic countries like Norway or Denmark. I really don't think we should rely on the goodwill of millionaires and them running the state is, on a scale, mostly an american issue. Of course we also have lobbies, with which I have a problem, but our European countries are less controlled by wealth than the US for sure. Regarding "good" billionaires, I'd suggest you listen to this: https://medium.com/@CitationsPodcst/episode-45-the-not-so-benevolent-billionaire-bill-gates-and-western-media-b1f8e0fe092f https://medium.com/@CitationsPodcst/episode-45-the-not-so-be... You seem to support Chicago school style approaches, with which I will disagree, being a pretty standard Frankfurt school believer. I'd still like to discuss this further. Find my email in my profile, if you want.
  - spyckie2 6y ago
    Hard to comment on societies I don't know well. Instead I'd like to offer this explanation of my point of view: There are two competing ideas of governance. One is the umbrella (ie. Godfather) and one is the public servant / slave (ie. Jesus). - The godfather creates an empire and everyone who lives under him lives really, really well. - The public servant is an invisible figure that solves all the problems of its people and serves the people, meeting their needs. The US has most likely lived under a godfather system for the last 70 or so years, after WW2. Like it or not, our billionaires have created empires (their companies) and we live really well because of them. If the people of the US want to continue in their standard of living, they need to keep propping up the billionaires' empires because it's those empires that create the umbrella for the high standard of living we have. This does turn the US economy into... either you serve in the empires and live well, or you live poorly not enjoying the empire's provisions. So you have a dual economy - those in the US who are running the empire's money printing machines, and those who can't help those companies print money. And the dual economy has two results -> really well off people, institutions, and society, and poor people. The poor people are actually rich compared to the rest of the world, but are poor because the rich economy has inflated the prices and expectation for a normal standard of living for those poor people, and they are getting squeezed by both income and cost of living. Both capitalism and socialism alludes to this kind of situation, with differing opinions of what to do about it. Capitalism says we should use godfathers to make everyone live well. Prop up the godfathers enough and everyone can live better off than they used to (very key point is relative to the past). Socialism says no we need to move towards the public servant model to make everyone live well. Remove all the umbrellas and replace them with servitude and everyone can live in an ideal and fair society (also a key point, standard of living is not relative to the past, it's relative to the ideal). In capitalism moral judgment is based on if you live better than you used to. If you want to see where we started from, just watch BBC's planet earth - you'll see starving lions with rib bones showing, trying to catch gazelle in scorching heat in Africa in order to eat, since they haven't eaten in weeks. You'll see eagles and dozens of birds fighting over dead carcasses that are rotting. From a capitalist point of view, going from having to hunt for your next meal 10,000 years ago to robust supply chains for groceries and upgrading your iphone every year for practically everyone in the world is what they consider moral accomplishment. In socialism, moral judgment is based on if you live in society as close to the ideal of fairness that it can be. It looks at the relativeness of the current structure of society instead of the relativeness of standard of living improvements over time. If rich people are enjoying more things than poor people right now, that's considered immoral. If everyone has the opportunity and privilege to live a decently comfortable life, that is moral. The US is very capitalist in mindset. Keep in mind that in capitalism, companies also help those not within the company by creating better quality goods for consumers (everyone else), so the more empires grow, the cheaper/better the consumer goods are, and the better quality of life is for everyone, not just those who work for the empire. The US is so capitalist that it cannot imagine a world where standard of living and company growth stagnates. That's how dependent the US is on empires and on capitalism. In some ways, if you accept the capitalist moral judgment as a good moral judgment, the US is trying very hard to be moral even when it's practically impossible to do so! But then again, tell US citizens that their standard of living is going to go down - that they will not get everything at the quality that they expect, that their income is going to shrink, that their livelihood will take a slight hit - and that's too much to bear for the US population's ego because we've never had to tighten our belts in the history of the US for that past 70 years. But that's exactly what needs to happen for: 1) healthcare costs to come down (doctors and hospitals need to earn a lot less, like maybe 50-60% less) 2) income inequality to stabilize (basically 10% wealth transfer for GDP every year) 3) climate change to be mitigated (reduce carbon emissions which is basically shrink GDP by 1-2%) 4) housing prices need to go down (basically tell everyone that their primary asset needs to depreciate by 30-50% or even more) So yeah we live and die by the godfathers and their empires - that's the way the US is. And it really doesn't matter who is in the governance seat - neither rich people nor a strong state will do a good job making policy to cause the above to occur - you first have to change the willingness of the American people to willingly accept systematized and distributed personal loss. To be fair to Americans, social fairness is growing on the importance scale - but you have to tailor the changes in a way that aligns with existing US values and behaviors. You can't just say "oh, implement the way the Chinese/Germans run their government in the US", it's just too foreign to get any traction or pragmatic action (which is what Frankfurt school eschews, right?). Implementing policies where rich people keep their empires and wealth but instead are forced to use their empires to not keep printing money but to solve other problems - that's very American sounding to me. No one is saying that Bill Gates is a beloved figure btw; we are saying that he's effective at investing into getting rid of malaria though. Same with Elon musk, he ain't no saint but he can sure get us to the moon. He might also get us to clean and renewable energy if he put his mind to it, you never know. A lot of my inspiration for my thoughts on these issues comes from the waitbutwhy blog. The whole series on the story of us is fascinating, but especially chapter 4 talks about the American view of consumer capitalism which I recommend to read. https://waitbutwhy.com/2019/09/enlightenment-kids.html https://waitbutwhy.com/2019/09/enlightenment-kids.html

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.

akuji1993 6y ago
> 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 Germany. I'd also add that the countries doing the most for their citizens are probably the Nordic European States plus Germany and France. All of them Social Democracies, so what Americans would probably call a "strong state" oriented approach. I have a lot to critize about my own country, but the social support structures are probably still among the best in the world only toppled by aforementioned Nordic countries like Norway or Denmark. I really don't think we should rely on the goodwill of millionaires and them running the state is, on a scale, mostly an american issue. Of course we also have lobbies, with which I have a problem, but our European countries are less controlled by wealth than the US for sure. Regarding "good" billionaires, I'd suggest you listen to this: https://medium.com/@CitationsPodcst/episode-45-the-not-so-benevolent-billionaire-bill-gates-and-western-media-b1f8e0fe092f https://medium.com/@CitationsPodcst/episode-45-the-not-so-be... You seem to support Chicago school style approaches, with which I will disagree, being a pretty standard Frankfurt school believer. I'd still like to discuss this further. Find my email in my profile, if you want.
- spyckie2 6y ago
  Hard to comment on societies I don't know well. Instead I'd like to offer this explanation of my point of view: There are two competing ideas of governance. One is the umbrella (ie. Godfather) and one is the public servant / slave (ie. Jesus). - The godfather creates an empire and everyone who lives under him lives really, really well. - The public servant is an invisible figure that solves all the problems of its people and serves the people, meeting their needs. The US has most likely lived under a godfather system for the last 70 or so years, after WW2. Like it or not, our billionaires have created empires (their companies) and we live really well because of them. If the people of the US want to continue in their standard of living, they need to keep propping up the billionaires' empires because it's those empires that create the umbrella for the high standard of living we have. This does turn the US economy into... either you serve in the empires and live well, or you live poorly not enjoying the empire's provisions. So you have a dual economy - those in the US who are running the empire's money printing machines, and those who can't help those companies print money. And the dual economy has two results -> really well off people, institutions, and society, and poor people. The poor people are actually rich compared to the rest of the world, but are poor because the rich economy has inflated the prices and expectation for a normal standard of living for those poor people, and they are getting squeezed by both income and cost of living. Both capitalism and socialism alludes to this kind of situation, with differing opinions of what to do about it. Capitalism says we should use godfathers to make everyone live well. Prop up the godfathers enough and everyone can live better off than they used to (very key point is relative to the past). Socialism says no we need to move towards the public servant model to make everyone live well. Remove all the umbrellas and replace them with servitude and everyone can live in an ideal and fair society (also a key point, standard of living is not relative to the past, it's relative to the ideal). In capitalism moral judgment is based on if you live better than you used to. If you want to see where we started from, just watch BBC's planet earth - you'll see starving lions with rib bones showing, trying to catch gazelle in scorching heat in Africa in order to eat, since they haven't eaten in weeks. You'll see eagles and dozens of birds fighting over dead carcasses that are rotting. From a capitalist point of view, going from having to hunt for your next meal 10,000 years ago to robust supply chains for groceries and upgrading your iphone every year for practically everyone in the world is what they consider moral accomplishment. In socialism, moral judgment is based on if you live in society as close to the ideal of fairness that it can be. It looks at the relativeness of the current structure of society instead of the relativeness of standard of living improvements over time. If rich people are enjoying more things than poor people right now, that's considered immoral. If everyone has the opportunity and privilege to live a decently comfortable life, that is moral. The US is very capitalist in mindset. Keep in mind that in capitalism, companies also help those not within the company by creating better quality goods for consumers (everyone else), so the more empires grow, the cheaper/better the consumer goods are, and the better quality of life is for everyone, not just those who work for the empire. The US is so capitalist that it cannot imagine a world where standard of living and company growth stagnates. That's how dependent the US is on empires and on capitalism. In some ways, if you accept the capitalist moral judgment as a good moral judgment, the US is trying very hard to be moral even when it's practically impossible to do so! But then again, tell US citizens that their standard of living is going to go down - that they will not get everything at the quality that they expect, that their income is going to shrink, that their livelihood will take a slight hit - and that's too much to bear for the US population's ego because we've never had to tighten our belts in the history of the US for that past 70 years. But that's exactly what needs to happen for: 1) healthcare costs to come down (doctors and hospitals need to earn a lot less, like maybe 50-60% less) 2) income inequality to stabilize (basically 10% wealth transfer for GDP every year) 3) climate change to be mitigated (reduce carbon emissions which is basically shrink GDP by 1-2%) 4) housing prices need to go down (basically tell everyone that their primary asset needs to depreciate by 30-50% or even more) So yeah we live and die by the godfathers and their empires - that's the way the US is. And it really doesn't matter who is in the governance seat - neither rich people nor a strong state will do a good job making policy to cause the above to occur - you first have to change the willingness of the American people to willingly accept systematized and distributed personal loss. To be fair to Americans, social fairness is growing on the importance scale - but you have to tailor the changes in a way that aligns with existing US values and behaviors. You can't just say "oh, implement the way the Chinese/Germans run their government in the US", it's just too foreign to get any traction or pragmatic action (which is what Frankfurt school eschews, right?). Implementing policies where rich people keep their empires and wealth but instead are forced to use their empires to not keep printing money but to solve other problems - that's very American sounding to me. No one is saying that Bill Gates is a beloved figure btw; we are saying that he's effective at investing into getting rid of malaria though. Same with Elon musk, he ain't no saint but he can sure get us to the moon. He might also get us to clean and renewable energy if he put his mind to it, you never know. A lot of my inspiration for my thoughts on these issues comes from the waitbutwhy blog. The whole series on the story of us is fascinating, but especially chapter 4 talks about the American view of consumer capitalism which I recommend to read. https://waitbutwhy.com/2019/09/enlightenment-kids.html https://waitbutwhy.com/2019/09/enlightenment-kids.html