3 ms·

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 exec

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.
        smoldesu 3y ago
        > What would stop more and more people choosing to become freeloaders if UBI is implemented? The promise of property and personal wealth, probably. UBI wouldn't be enough to live off of for most people, and there's no incentive to make it that way. Nobody would vote for a UBI definition that gives San Fran residents more money to cover their oh-so expensive housing. As-is though, many people think there aren't any economic incentives in the status-quo. Low-end jobs in retail and food service are going unfilled across America, and it's not because of UBI. People hate the jobs, and the market is being forced to respond. If competing with the promise of UBI is too difficult for employers, they probably weren't offering a living wage in the first place.
        aristofun 3y ago
        Who is going to deliver your hamburgers then? Who is going to clean your streets? Really - if people can just do nothing for the same wage. And those who are more smart, capable and ambitious - why would they do this job?

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.
      - smoldesu 3y ago
        > What would stop more and more people choosing to become freeloaders if UBI is implemented? The promise of property and personal wealth, probably. UBI wouldn't be enough to live off of for most people, and there's no incentive to make it that way. Nobody would vote for a UBI definition that gives San Fran residents more money to cover their oh-so expensive housing. As-is though, many people think there aren't any economic incentives in the status-quo. Low-end jobs in retail and food service are going unfilled across America, and it's not because of UBI. People hate the jobs, and the market is being forced to respond. If competing with the promise of UBI is too difficult for employers, they probably weren't offering a living wage in the first place.
        aristofun 3y ago
        Who is going to deliver your hamburgers then? Who is going to clean your streets? Really - if people can just do nothing for the same wage. And those who are more smart, capable and ambitious - why would they do this job?