8 ms·

Won't work because all truly wealthy people can secure their wealth against inflation, while poor people cannot. As a simple example, consider owning a house v

Won't work because all truly wealthy people can secure their wealth against inflation, while poor people cannot. As a simple example, consider owning a house vs. renting. If you own the house, the actual number doesn't matter. If you're renting, the ratio between rent and salary is highly critical for your lifestyle.

rorykoehler 5y ago
Add a UBI and it would work. There needs to be an economic floor which ensures there is no destitution. The aim isn't to get rid of wealth. The system now isn't working because wealthy people are securing their income and wealth without paying tax at the expense of social and civil programs.
- tgv 5y ago
  Then UBI fails and everyone becomes a beggar. No thanks.
  - rorykoehler 5y ago
    If it fails you can always revert to the current failed system.
    - tgv 5y ago
      In my country, UBI is supposed to go hand in hand with dismantling all social welfare, subsidies, whathaveyou. Once all the laws have been changed, and the civil service has been completely reorganized, it's a titanic fight to get them reverted, and after that, all the institutions still have to be put back in place. It would take 20 years.
      - rorykoehler 5y ago
        There are no hard rules on structure of other programs in relation to ubi. It would be foolish to remove support for special needs etc. Unemployment benefits, public pensions etc can go away but the rest must be looked at on a case by case basis.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  Assuming the UBI works out as intended and doesn't lead to unmanageable inflation the definition of destitution will just change to reflect the new floor. How many 70s government housing project apartments or leaky rural shacks do you think you'd need to combine to get one working set of appliances and utilities that every section 8 apartment and double wide trailer has these days? (I'd put that number at 3-5). That was the floor then. That floor is mostly the subfloor now. As things get better our standards get higher. Progress is good but you will never "solve" poverty, destitution, or any other bad thing that is defined relative to the rest of the population.
  - rorykoehler 5y ago
    Things need to be maintained. Public HDB housing from the 1970s in Singapore is as good if not better than the new builds going up here in Germany. Destitution is not a moving goal post. You need adequate food, water, housing, healthcare, education and security. This is what UBI has to cover. If private housing is soaking it all up through rent seeking then it can be solved via rent controlled public or public/private (like Singapore’s hdb) housing schemes. You want more then you have to work for it.
- dalbasal 5y ago
  You are on the right track, IMO, but taxation can't be abolished. Taxation is what gives currency value/demand. Everyone needs to pay tax in USD, so they need USD. A loose monetary policy (a la NMT or Keynes) also needs taxation in order to destroy currency. Currency works in a loop. Governments/issuers make USD and pay for stuff (UBI, etc). The currency must complete its life cycle by returning home. It's circulation that makes currency currency. Without taxation, we'd have currency collapse, not inflation. Printing money without sufficient taxation, we have what we're seeing currently: asset value inflation. Also, I think we're beginning to understand that "general inflation" isn't really a thing. The price of investable assets isn't connected to the price of consumable goods. Wealth disparities are a big part of this. In theory, if Jeff Bezos and such tried to spend their earnings... we'd have inflation. But when personal income and CG is measured in billions, it's basically impossible to actually consume as much as you earn.
namdnay 5y ago
> Won't work because all truly wealthy people can secure their wealth against inflation, while poor people cannot. I don't agree with this. The "truly wealthy" don't have any magic recipes that are better long-term than just MSCI World ETF or similar > As a simple example, consider owning a house vs. renting. If you own the house, the actual number doesn't matter. If you're renting, the ratio between rent and salary is highly critical for your lifestyle. If there is inflation you don't feel it as a renter either, because your salary and the rent both increase in lockstep (and in many countries, rent increases once in contract are tied to inflation)
- TimPC 5y ago
  What makes you think salaries will suddenly increase in lockstep when they’ve been increasing slower than inflation since about 1970?
  - namdnay 5y ago
    > they’ve been increasing slower than inflation since about 1970 where? definitely not in china or india. not in france, the UK or germany either
wwtrv 5y ago
Poor people usually don’t have any wealth so if wages would be directly tied to inflation I don’t see how would this would benefit the wealthy more. Of course historically wages tend to lag behind inflation, often quite significantly.

rorykoehler 5y ago

Add a UBI and it would work. There needs to be an economic floor which ensures there is no destitution. The aim isn't to get rid of wealth. The system now isn't working because wealthy people are securing their income and wealth without paying tax at the expense of social and civil programs.

tgv 5y ago
Then UBI fails and everyone becomes a beggar. No thanks.
- rorykoehler 5y ago
  If it fails you can always revert to the current failed system.
  - tgv 5y ago
    In my country, UBI is supposed to go hand in hand with dismantling all social welfare, subsidies, whathaveyou. Once all the laws have been changed, and the civil service has been completely reorganized, it's a titanic fight to get them reverted, and after that, all the institutions still have to be put back in place. It would take 20 years.
    - rorykoehler 5y ago
      There are no hard rules on structure of other programs in relation to ubi. It would be foolish to remove support for special needs etc. Unemployment benefits, public pensions etc can go away but the rest must be looked at on a case by case basis.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
Assuming the UBI works out as intended and doesn't lead to unmanageable inflation the definition of destitution will just change to reflect the new floor. How many 70s government housing project apartments or leaky rural shacks do you think you'd need to combine to get one working set of appliances and utilities that every section 8 apartment and double wide trailer has these days? (I'd put that number at 3-5). That was the floor then. That floor is mostly the subfloor now. As things get better our standards get higher. Progress is good but you will never "solve" poverty, destitution, or any other bad thing that is defined relative to the rest of the population.
- rorykoehler 5y ago
  Things need to be maintained. Public HDB housing from the 1970s in Singapore is as good if not better than the new builds going up here in Germany. Destitution is not a moving goal post. You need adequate food, water, housing, healthcare, education and security. This is what UBI has to cover. If private housing is soaking it all up through rent seeking then it can be solved via rent controlled public or public/private (like Singapore’s hdb) housing schemes. You want more then you have to work for it.
dalbasal 5y ago
You are on the right track, IMO, but taxation can't be abolished. Taxation is what gives currency value/demand. Everyone needs to pay tax in USD, so they need USD. A loose monetary policy (a la NMT or Keynes) also needs taxation in order to destroy currency. Currency works in a loop. Governments/issuers make USD and pay for stuff (UBI, etc). The currency must complete its life cycle by returning home. It's circulation that makes currency currency. Without taxation, we'd have currency collapse, not inflation. Printing money without sufficient taxation, we have what we're seeing currently: asset value inflation. Also, I think we're beginning to understand that "general inflation" isn't really a thing. The price of investable assets isn't connected to the price of consumable goods. Wealth disparities are a big part of this. In theory, if Jeff Bezos and such tried to spend their earnings... we'd have inflation. But when personal income and CG is measured in billions, it's basically impossible to actually consume as much as you earn.

namdnay 5y ago

> Won't work because all truly wealthy people can secure their wealth against inflation, while poor people cannot. I don't agree with this. The "truly wealthy" don't have any magic recipes that are better long-term than just MSCI World ETF or similar > As a simple example, consider owning a house vs. renting. If you own the house, the actual number doesn't matter. If you're renting, the ratio between rent and salary is highly critical for your lifestyle. If there is inflation you don't feel it as a renter either, because your salary and the rent both increase in lockstep (and in many countries, rent increases once in contract are tied to inflation)

TimPC 5y ago
What makes you think salaries will suddenly increase in lockstep when they’ve been increasing slower than inflation since about 1970?
- namdnay 5y ago
  > they’ve been increasing slower than inflation since about 1970 where? definitely not in china or india. not in france, the UK or germany either

wwtrv 5y ago

Poor people usually don’t have any wealth so if wages would be directly tied to inflation I don’t see how would this would benefit the wealthy more. Of course historically wages tend to lag behind inflation, often quite significantly.