3 ms·

On some level, the United States already distributes a form of basic income via welfare. A lot of people already apply for it, but very few of those are freeloa

On some level, the United States already distributes a form of basic income via welfare. A lot of people already apply for it, but very few of those are freeloaders per-se; they're using a government service to supplant homelessness or destitution. Whether you consider it an abusive system or not, it exists; the logical leap of expanding it into UBI is not very large. Now, I don't personally think UBI is a good idea, but I do think valuing people based on the whims of a free market is a terrible idea. Something better has to be proposed, or else the income gap will increase and the populist sentiment will further side with UBI. Your move, Voltaire.

aristofun 3y ago
> Something better has to be proposed Absolutely! This is why I question these things. And it strikes me that seemingly some of ideas don't pass the lowest common sense bar...
- smoldesu 3y ago
  It totally makes sense to me; nothing about it seems "immoral" like you've posed. Our country produces revenue far in excess of meaningful compensation for executives, business owners and shareholders. The only logical, nay moral way for the nation to survive is by imposing a more progressive tax structure to support a growing class of impoverished citizens. That's what postcapitalist economics looks like, sorry to disappoint. UBI is a logical way to redistribute that excess, but it would require a frank reimagining of certain internal markets. It will also inevitably piss off the people who would stand to gain from exploiting those gaps, but that's just tough luck for them. If someone can sort that out reasonably, I'd support it too.
  - aristofun 3y ago
    Wait wait wait... Don't go into fancy words and some details yet please. Just explain to me — how is it moral for someone who does the work to give away part of their produced value to free loaders in exchange... for nothing? I don't mean supporting people who are unable to work permanently or temporarily (like kids) and all the obvious people who has little choice over their abilities. I emphasize people who can, but don't want to work and to produce any value, not even fart a melody (artists are not free loaders). How is it moral to give them value that you was working for?
    - smoldesu 3y ago
      The state provides order. They police things and maintain the economy under terms we consumers call "good". That costs money, so we pay for it via taxation - logical and moral. On top of that, a portion of your taxation goes beyond maintaining the state, and towards funding welfare. This is perhaps more controversial, but has little impact on the rich while providing substantial safety nets for the poor. This is where we are today; it's largely not considered immoral, except by people who disagree with the popular, democratic opinion. Beyond that, UBI exists. That would be a lot of new things, and very scary. However, it's not that big of a mental leap to make; progressive taxes on business and individual wealth could be redistributed to those who need it more. If it's considered freeloading to allow citizens live above the poverty line, why let individuals and corporations extract infinite wealth? From a top-down perspective, citizens are being harmed by the businesses. We can either limit their profitability by setting the prices manually (aka Literal Communism), or we could redistribute that wealth in a way that encourages successful businesses to stay innovative. That all makes sense to me; if drafted well, I think it could be both moral and logical. > How is it moral to give them value that you was working for? I take it you live in Timbuktu, or are awaiting a particularly nasty IRS call. Unless you don't pay taxes, your money already goes towards everything you've mentioned.
      - aristofun 3y ago
        You don't answer again :( Is it immoral or not to be a free loader? Yes or no? In your opinion.
        smoldesu 3y ago
        No, evidently. See my previous answers for justification.
        aristofun 3y ago
        Okay. Thanks. Than next question - if it is not immoral. What would stop more and more people choosing to become freeloaders if UBI is implemented? They don’t have any economical incentives by definition, and in your view - not even moral ones.

aristofun 3y ago

> Something better has to be proposed Absolutely! This is why I question these things. And it strikes me that seemingly some of ideas don't pass the lowest common sense bar...

smoldesu 3y ago
It totally makes sense to me; nothing about it seems "immoral" like you've posed. Our country produces revenue far in excess of meaningful compensation for executives, business owners and shareholders. The only logical, nay moral way for the nation to survive is by imposing a more progressive tax structure to support a growing class of impoverished citizens. That's what postcapitalist economics looks like, sorry to disappoint. UBI is a logical way to redistribute that excess, but it would require a frank reimagining of certain internal markets. It will also inevitably piss off the people who would stand to gain from exploiting those gaps, but that's just tough luck for them. If someone can sort that out reasonably, I'd support it too.
- aristofun 3y ago
  Wait wait wait... Don't go into fancy words and some details yet please. Just explain to me — how is it moral for someone who does the work to give away part of their produced value to free loaders in exchange... for nothing? I don't mean supporting people who are unable to work permanently or temporarily (like kids) and all the obvious people who has little choice over their abilities. I emphasize people who can, but don't want to work and to produce any value, not even fart a melody (artists are not free loaders). How is it moral to give them value that you was working for?
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    The state provides order. They police things and maintain the economy under terms we consumers call "good". That costs money, so we pay for it via taxation - logical and moral. On top of that, a portion of your taxation goes beyond maintaining the state, and towards funding welfare. This is perhaps more controversial, but has little impact on the rich while providing substantial safety nets for the poor. This is where we are today; it's largely not considered immoral, except by people who disagree with the popular, democratic opinion. Beyond that, UBI exists. That would be a lot of new things, and very scary. However, it's not that big of a mental leap to make; progressive taxes on business and individual wealth could be redistributed to those who need it more. If it's considered freeloading to allow citizens live above the poverty line, why let individuals and corporations extract infinite wealth? From a top-down perspective, citizens are being harmed by the businesses. We can either limit their profitability by setting the prices manually (aka Literal Communism), or we could redistribute that wealth in a way that encourages successful businesses to stay innovative. That all makes sense to me; if drafted well, I think it could be both moral and logical. > How is it moral to give them value that you was working for? I take it you live in Timbuktu, or are awaiting a particularly nasty IRS call. Unless you don't pay taxes, your money already goes towards everything you've mentioned.
    - aristofun 3y ago
      You don't answer again :( Is it immoral or not to be a free loader? Yes or no? In your opinion.
      - smoldesu 3y ago
        No, evidently. See my previous answers for justification.
        aristofun 3y ago
        Okay. Thanks. Than next question - if it is not immoral. What would stop more and more people choosing to become freeloaders if UBI is implemented? They don’t have any economical incentives by definition, and in your view - not even moral ones.