3 ms·

Not for the other group who will have products of their labor "redistributed" to pay for other's leisure time?

ClumsyPilot 5y ago
Gettting rid of serfdom, debt prisons and endentured servitude all reduced work and caused products of labour to be redistributed. Who said that current distribution of products of labour between Amazok and their workers is optimal?
- caskstrength 5y ago
  We all fantasize Bezos and Musk should pay for it, but in reality it will be yet another tax on middle class (e.g. run-of-the-mill senior developer from high CoL area, so from Amazon engineer to (would be ex) Amazon warehouse worker).
  - notahacker 5y ago
    Would be even broader than that (run-of-the-mill junior dev in high CoL ara to lower middle class homeowner that fancies early retirement)
- ryan93 5y ago
  If we are getting rid of serfdom why has no one suggested this money goes to third world workers?
Dylan16807 5y ago
If those people aren't getting paid a very high wage, they can reduce their working hours too. If they are getting paid a very high wage, then they already had the leverage needed to reduce their working hours, and they were choosing not to. They'll still make plenty of money.
- caskstrength 5y ago
  > They'll still make plenty of money. How much is "plenty" and who gets to decide? What if they live in high CoL area? You propose they should sponsor someone else's leisure time instead of buying a house for their family, for example?
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    That's basically a normal tax question at that point.
    - caskstrength 5y ago
      Well, yeah, this is exactly what I've been saying in this thread: Any realistic UBI program will be payed by taxes on middle class.
      - Dylan16807 5y ago
        So go use those arguments you already mentioned, about redistribution and buying houses, against current taxes. You can even use the same complaints about freeloaders. You made it sound like this caused new objections, rather than being one more bout of business as usual tax griping.
        caskstrength 5y ago
        You seem to be upset with my arguments for some reason. However, if you read some other comments here and multitude of previous UBI-related discussions, you will see that there are a lot of people who (naively) assume that UBI will be somehow financed by taxes on corporations (from one of the comments: "Really, you'd just want to tax corporations over a certain size that are both highly automated (i.e. high revenue per employee), and have lopsided compensation structures (which could be measured by CEO to median worker pay)."). However, if you want to get a good approximation how modern politicians structure similar programs, then just look at California health care tax proposal (aka "Let's make healthcare free for ourselves and get tech-bros pay for it!").
loceng 5y ago
You mean for the machine's labour - progressively more and more as more and more is automated, and where people with their UBI are paying into the system (consumers aren't a fuel leak, they're the largest cog in the wheel) and workers will be getting paid adequately on top of the UBI they'll be getting too? A concept missed by most is that the buying power of "$1,000"/month grows exponentially as more and more gets automated.
- caskstrength 5y ago
  > You mean for the machine's labour - progressively more and more as more and more is automated How do you propose to finance UBI? All proposals that I've seen assume middle class to pay (for example, "everyone pays percentage of their income and then everyone gets fixed amount of money at the end of the period"), not nebulous machine-automation overlords. > A concept missed by most is that the buying power of "$1,000"/month grows exponentially as more and more gets automated. I don't observe housing getting exponentially cheaper "as more and more gets automated". In fact, I believe landlords would capture non-trivial amount of any potential UBI program.

Gettting rid of serfdom, debt prisons and endentured servitude all reduced work and caused products of labour to be redistributed. Who said that current distribution of products of labour between Amazok and their workers is optimal?

caskstrength 5y ago
We all fantasize Bezos and Musk should pay for it, but in reality it will be yet another tax on middle class (e.g. run-of-the-mill senior developer from high CoL area, so from Amazon engineer to (would be ex) Amazon warehouse worker).
- notahacker 5y ago
  Would be even broader than that (run-of-the-mill junior dev in high CoL ara to lower middle class homeowner that fancies early retirement)
ryan93 5y ago
If we are getting rid of serfdom why has no one suggested this money goes to third world workers?

Dylan16807 5y ago

If those people aren't getting paid a very high wage, they can reduce their working hours too. If they are getting paid a very high wage, then they already had the leverage needed to reduce their working hours, and they were choosing not to. They'll still make plenty of money.

caskstrength 5y ago
> They'll still make plenty of money. How much is "plenty" and who gets to decide? What if they live in high CoL area? You propose they should sponsor someone else's leisure time instead of buying a house for their family, for example?
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  That's basically a normal tax question at that point.
  - caskstrength 5y ago
    Well, yeah, this is exactly what I've been saying in this thread: Any realistic UBI program will be payed by taxes on middle class.
    - Dylan16807 5y ago
      So go use those arguments you already mentioned, about redistribution and buying houses, against current taxes. You can even use the same complaints about freeloaders. You made it sound like this caused new objections, rather than being one more bout of business as usual tax griping.
      - caskstrength 5y ago
        You seem to be upset with my arguments for some reason. However, if you read some other comments here and multitude of previous UBI-related discussions, you will see that there are a lot of people who (naively) assume that UBI will be somehow financed by taxes on corporations (from one of the comments: "Really, you'd just want to tax corporations over a certain size that are both highly automated (i.e. high revenue per employee), and have lopsided compensation structures (which could be measured by CEO to median worker pay)."). However, if you want to get a good approximation how modern politicians structure similar programs, then just look at California health care tax proposal (aka "Let's make healthcare free for ourselves and get tech-bros pay for it!").

loceng 5y ago

You mean for the machine's labour - progressively more and more as more and more is automated, and where people with their UBI are paying into the system (consumers aren't a fuel leak, they're the largest cog in the wheel) and workers will be getting paid adequately on top of the UBI they'll be getting too? A concept missed by most is that the buying power of "$1,000"/month grows exponentially as more and more gets automated.

caskstrength 5y ago
> You mean for the machine's labour - progressively more and more as more and more is automated How do you propose to finance UBI? All proposals that I've seen assume middle class to pay (for example, "everyone pays percentage of their income and then everyone gets fixed amount of money at the end of the period"), not nebulous machine-automation overlords. > A concept missed by most is that the buying power of "$1,000"/month grows exponentially as more and more gets automated. I don't observe housing getting exponentially cheaper "as more and more gets automated". In fact, I believe landlords would capture non-trivial amount of any potential UBI program.