4 ms·

I'm pretty sure that most opposition to UBI has little to do with lack of empathy, but rather with practical economic reasoning and general beliefs about the ro

I'm pretty sure that most opposition to UBI has little to do with lack of empathy, but rather with practical economic reasoning and general beliefs about the role of government in society.

path411 6y ago
Maybe I'm just too indoctrinated by reddit at this point, but someone would really have to give me a lot of real world evidence counter to not only the examples where UBI and other programs targeted towards the poor have benefited the economy. But even just to counter the pretty basic logic that more productive members of society helps the economy, and more money in the hands of people spending money, not hoarding money, means a better economy.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- kortilla 6y ago
  The counter evidence is simple, it costs $300 billion a month to provide 300 million adults with $1,000 a month. That’s $3.6 trillion a year. That’s the entire federal tax revenue consumed by UBI. So you need to double everyone’s income tax to get back to even. Of course there is evidence giving people free stuff improves their lives. The problem is that’s an insane amount of money that has to come from somewhere. To put that in context, the top 1% have an aggregate wealth in the US of about 34 trillion. So we could take all of the net worth from doctors, lawyers, business owners, CEOs, FAANG employees, etc and pay for this for about 10 years. Then we’re left with consuming the middle class and then we’ll just be out of wealth period. There is just no reasonable explanation for how this will be paid for. Even wealthy countries favorable to socialist policies (e.g. Norway) have nothing like UBI. Let me turn the question to you. What makes you think UBI is sustainable? You have to have some pretty damn good evidence when you’re betting the entire federal government budget on it.
  - the-smug-one 6y ago
    The GDP per capita in the US is over $60000USD. 20% of that is a rather large chunk to directly redistribute to the workers, but is it an impossible amount? The effects of UBI on how we live our lives would probably be quite enormous and it's (to me, as a comp sci person) difficult to ascertain what its effects would be.
    - kortilla 6y ago
      Yes, that’s enormous and you’re forgetting that a huge chunk of that already is income. You mentioned GDP in an effort to downplay the the enormity of the size. That’s every transaction for a good or service. That means to pay for this, not only would there be an extra 20% on income tax for everyone, but there would be a 20% federal sales tax on everything (including homes, surgeries, tuition, etc). “Redistribute from workers” is a cutesy way to make it sound like it’s just coming from some excess cache reserve. No such reserve exists. For the numbers to work out, this needs to come from the middle class’s income as well as the rich. There isn’t enough wealth, let alone income, at the 1% level to even scratch the surface on these proposals.
      - the-smug-one 6y ago
        >You mentioned GDP in an effort to downplay the the enormity of the size No, actually I mentioned it because I thought you skipped out on the fact that money isn't a static amount which we drain out with UBI in this quote: >To put that in context, the top 1% have an aggregate wealth in the US of about 34 trillion. So we could take all of the net worth from doctors, lawyers, business owners, CEOs, FAANG employees, etc and pay for this for about 10 years. So I wanted to have a different measurement which took how much we produce into account. But thanks for assuming I'm arguing in bad faith, lol.
        kortilla 6y ago
        > No, actually I mentioned it because I thought you skipped out on the fact that money isn't a static amount which we drain out with UBI in this quote: You can’t print your way to GDP. If you’re suggesting the government just issue the extra money without funding it, you’re just diluting everyone’s existing money because you haven’t increased the production of the economy. Constant issuance of amounts this big needs to be funded or the massive amount of demand for the same fixed amount of goods and services will just cause hyper inflation. And if you’re arguing that giving people UBI will make them work more and not less (enough to account for the GDP loss), that’s a pretty extraordinary claim that hasn’t been backed up by any ongoing UBI experiments. > But thanks for assuming I'm arguing in bad faith, lol. I’m not. I’m pointing out the incredible road block for UBI and you’re refusing to address it. It would fundamentally alter the economy to become the highest taxed of any first world countries and we would have the largest monetary entitlements per capita ever. Nothing like this has ever worked, none of the communist/socialist states (even at their peaks) gave out this much in income. People who are against UBI are concerned with that. It has nothing to do with lack of empathy. The problem with UBI is that it’s not solving a particular problem so there are no efficiencies to be gained. Like if we wanted to solve housing, we could have the Army go out and build houses at scale and the per house costs could be quite low. No such economies of scale come into play with UBI. You’ll find more support for federal government built housing and federal government provide food than you will for UBI when the reality sinks in of what you’re asking the middle class to sacrifice.
- PhilosAccnting 6y ago
  A huge part of this depends on your philosophical axioms about the inherent morality of individuals. Are people default-good or default-bad? Frankly, this view is the major divide between conservative and liberal. And, it'll directly affect all practical implementations such as giving everyone free money. It's also profoundly philosophical in questioning the essence of the soul, so most people like to get unphilosophically political (which is like trying to make software without knowing a language).

I'm pretty sure that most opposition to UBI has little to do with lack of empathy, but rather with practical economic reasoning and general beliefs about the role of government in society.

path411 6y ago

Maybe I'm just too indoctrinated by reddit at this point, but someone would really have to give me a lot of real world evidence counter to not only the examples where UBI and other programs targeted towards the poor have benefited the economy. But even just to counter the pretty basic logic that more productive members of society helps the economy, and more money in the hands of people spending money, not hoarding money, means a better economy.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
kortilla 6y ago
The counter evidence is simple, it costs $300 billion a month to provide 300 million adults with $1,000 a month. That’s $3.6 trillion a year. That’s the entire federal tax revenue consumed by UBI. So you need to double everyone’s income tax to get back to even. Of course there is evidence giving people free stuff improves their lives. The problem is that’s an insane amount of money that has to come from somewhere. To put that in context, the top 1% have an aggregate wealth in the US of about 34 trillion. So we could take all of the net worth from doctors, lawyers, business owners, CEOs, FAANG employees, etc and pay for this for about 10 years. Then we’re left with consuming the middle class and then we’ll just be out of wealth period. There is just no reasonable explanation for how this will be paid for. Even wealthy countries favorable to socialist policies (e.g. Norway) have nothing like UBI. Let me turn the question to you. What makes you think UBI is sustainable? You have to have some pretty damn good evidence when you’re betting the entire federal government budget on it.
- the-smug-one 6y ago
  The GDP per capita in the US is over $60000USD. 20% of that is a rather large chunk to directly redistribute to the workers, but is it an impossible amount? The effects of UBI on how we live our lives would probably be quite enormous and it's (to me, as a comp sci person) difficult to ascertain what its effects would be.
  - kortilla 6y ago
    Yes, that’s enormous and you’re forgetting that a huge chunk of that already is income. You mentioned GDP in an effort to downplay the the enormity of the size. That’s every transaction for a good or service. That means to pay for this, not only would there be an extra 20% on income tax for everyone, but there would be a 20% federal sales tax on everything (including homes, surgeries, tuition, etc). “Redistribute from workers” is a cutesy way to make it sound like it’s just coming from some excess cache reserve. No such reserve exists. For the numbers to work out, this needs to come from the middle class’s income as well as the rich. There isn’t enough wealth, let alone income, at the 1% level to even scratch the surface on these proposals.
    - the-smug-one 6y ago
      >You mentioned GDP in an effort to downplay the the enormity of the size No, actually I mentioned it because I thought you skipped out on the fact that money isn't a static amount which we drain out with UBI in this quote: >To put that in context, the top 1% have an aggregate wealth in the US of about 34 trillion. So we could take all of the net worth from doctors, lawyers, business owners, CEOs, FAANG employees, etc and pay for this for about 10 years. So I wanted to have a different measurement which took how much we produce into account. But thanks for assuming I'm arguing in bad faith, lol.
      - kortilla 6y ago
        > No, actually I mentioned it because I thought you skipped out on the fact that money isn't a static amount which we drain out with UBI in this quote: You can’t print your way to GDP. If you’re suggesting the government just issue the extra money without funding it, you’re just diluting everyone’s existing money because you haven’t increased the production of the economy. Constant issuance of amounts this big needs to be funded or the massive amount of demand for the same fixed amount of goods and services will just cause hyper inflation. And if you’re arguing that giving people UBI will make them work more and not less (enough to account for the GDP loss), that’s a pretty extraordinary claim that hasn’t been backed up by any ongoing UBI experiments. > But thanks for assuming I'm arguing in bad faith, lol. I’m not. I’m pointing out the incredible road block for UBI and you’re refusing to address it. It would fundamentally alter the economy to become the highest taxed of any first world countries and we would have the largest monetary entitlements per capita ever. Nothing like this has ever worked, none of the communist/socialist states (even at their peaks) gave out this much in income. People who are against UBI are concerned with that. It has nothing to do with lack of empathy. The problem with UBI is that it’s not solving a particular problem so there are no efficiencies to be gained. Like if we wanted to solve housing, we could have the Army go out and build houses at scale and the per house costs could be quite low. No such economies of scale come into play with UBI. You’ll find more support for federal government built housing and federal government provide food than you will for UBI when the reality sinks in of what you’re asking the middle class to sacrifice.
PhilosAccnting 6y ago
A huge part of this depends on your philosophical axioms about the inherent morality of individuals. Are people default-good or default-bad? Frankly, this view is the major divide between conservative and liberal. And, it'll directly affect all practical implementations such as giving everyone free money. It's also profoundly philosophical in questioning the essence of the soul, so most people like to get unphilosophically political (which is like trying to make software without knowing a language).