4 ms·

No it wouldn't. Inflation would skyrocket and baseline prices would be at least 10x higher. And that's not how UBI works, no one is some multiplier richer becau

No it wouldn't. Inflation would skyrocket and baseline prices would be at least 10x higher. And that's not how UBI works, no one is some multiplier richer because it exists. The top 1% getting 1000x richer is a problem, because trickle down economics is bullshit. Money that exists as part of a pile of gold in a dragon's den does not move the economy.

eru 1y ago
I was not making a statement about UBI. I was purely talking about inequality. The price level is driven by what the central bank does with the money printer. UBI wouldn't raise prices, if the central bank does their job even halfway competently. (Even the mediocre real world performance of the Fed or ECB would suffice to _not_ have prices raise by 10x in eg a year of UBI.) > And that's not how UBI works, no one is some multiplier richer because it exists. I was not meaning to imply that UBI would make people richer on average. My comment was purely about inequality being a bad measure. UBI plus the taxes that finance it are a redistribution scheme. It doesn't make people richer on average. At best you can hope that the tax is very efficient and has low or no deadweight losses (like land value taxes), so that on average UBI doesn't make your society worse off. > The top 1% getting 1000x richer is a problem, because trickle down economics is bullshit. Money that exists as part of a pile of gold in a dragon's den does not move the economy. Huh? If what you said were true, the top 1% getting 1000x richer would merely not do anything, but it wouldn't be a problem per se. Btw, it's not a problem if someone just hoard some money: the central bank will notice that inflation is below target, and print more. (Later, when you spend from your hoard, the central bank will notice that, and correspondingly shrink the money supply.) Sticking money in a hoard is equivalent to giving an interest free loan to the central bank, because they can temporarily emit more money, while yours is out of circulation. However, rich people don't tend to keep cash in a vault. Most of them own companies or land etc.
- voidhorse 1y ago
  > However, rich people don't tend to keep cash in a vault. Most of them own companies or land etc. exactly. Which is the problem. You seem to actually have all the ingredients to be able to understand why this is a problem, but some kind of sympathy for the rich (lol) seems to prevent you from actually using logic to see the problem.
  - eru 1y ago
    Sorry, I don't understand what problem you are seeing from people owning shares in eg publicly traded companies.
    - surgical_fire 1y ago
      Not a problem. But above a certain threshold it should be considered taxable wealth too.
    - voidhorse 1y ago
      Don't be silly. Smoking one cigarette is generally not problematic. Smoking thousands will tend to give you lung cancer. Nobody is arguing that people shouldn't own stocks. People are arguing that asset concentration taken to extremes is like smoking too many cigs: so enough and you force bad outcomes on society and the economic system.
- johnecheck 1y ago
  Your analysis is spot on. UBI funded by taxes is redistribution. Is that a bad thing? It would obviously have some negative effects. We'd immediately see damage to luxury brands and yacht sales. The art markets would crash. Stock markets would feel some pain. The upside though? My hunch is that making most people feel secure enough to risk starting/joining businesses is fuel for a strong and innovative economy. The fact that so few of us are able to take those risks is a constraint on growth.
  - eru 1y ago
    > We'd immediately see damage to luxury brands and yacht sales. The art markets would crash. Stock markets would feel some pain. How do you make these confident predictions? I think it would depend a lot on how the UBI is, and exactly how you design the taxes to finance it (and how high those taxes are going to be).
    - johnecheck 1y ago
      My assumption is that UBI is a significant transfer of wealth from the richest to the rest. Isn't that the whole point? Exactly how to structure the taxes that pay for it is naturally a key question. Given that, it's pretty safe to assume markets that cater exclusively to the ultra-wealthy will be harmed by reduced demand as their customer base shrinks. Higher tax rates will also exert downward pressure ob stock values as companies make less profit and investors tighten their belts. (Especially if there's a wealth tax.)
- surgical_fire 1y ago
  > UBI plus the taxes that finance it are a redistribution scheme. Yes. That is desirable. > However, rich people don't tend to keep cash in a vault. Most of them own companies or land etc. And those too should be taxed. If it is wealth, it should be taxed.
  - eru 1y ago
    I keep significant fraction of my wealth in eg my kidneys and healthy organs. Should they be taxed? How about taxing Brad Pitt for his good looks?
bigfishrunning 1y ago
The top 1% aren't sitting on a pile of gold in a dragon's den, their wealth is mostly invested. The amount of money Jeff Bezos owns in houses and boats is small in comparison to the amount of his wealth that is represented by stock in amazon; that money in amazon's hands is absolutely cycling through the economy.
- surgical_fire 1y ago
  > small in comparison to the amount of his wealth that is represented by stock in amazon That wealth should also be taxed. What makes stock ownership somehow holy that should be protected from taxation? We should stop conflating what a company generates as a consequence of their activity with the glorified gambling of the stock market.
  - eru 1y ago
    Stock ownership isn't protected from taxation: there's capital gains tax to be paid (in many countries). > We should stop conflating what a company generates as a consequence of their activity with the glorified gambling of the stock market. Well, that might be a valid point for some people, but it's pointless for Zuckerberg or Bezos or Bill Gates or even Musk: those guys have been mostly holding their companies' stocks for ages. They don't buy and sell all the time. No 'glorified gambling the stock market' there. In any case, I brought up stock ownership as a concrete example of wealth that doesn't just site 'idle' in a vault somewhere. It's a claim on a productive enterprise that is only worth something because it serves customers and employs people etc.
- KittenInABox 1y ago
  Jeff Bezos can spend 50 million dollars on his wedding. Since that's a small amount of money compared to the amount of his stock in amazon, I think Jeff can actually afford to have his taxes raised on whatever he has on hand.
- kaibee 1y ago
  Look, its pretty simple. Here's a microcosm example: There is a German ship-builder that exclusively builds luxury yachts. They have ~2,000 highly skilled craftsmen, engineers, etc. This company only exists because wealth is concentrated enough to support a market for it. That company consumes about 4 million skilled-labor-hours a year to provide this service. This means that skilled-labor-hours are more scarce/expensive for _everyone_, because the on any given year, there are only so many skilled-labor hours that exist. These labor hours require about three decades of investment from society to produce (public education/childcare/etc). Bezos may not buy a super-yacht every year, but as a class, the super rich consume an insane labor hours.

eru 1y ago

I was not making a statement about UBI. I was purely talking about inequality. The price level is driven by what the central bank does with the money printer. UBI wouldn't raise prices, if the central bank does their job even halfway competently. (Even the mediocre real world performance of the Fed or ECB would suffice to _not_ have prices raise by 10x in eg a year of UBI.) > And that's not how UBI works, no one is some multiplier richer because it exists. I was not meaning to imply that UBI would make people richer on average. My comment was purely about inequality being a bad measure. UBI plus the taxes that finance it are a redistribution scheme. It doesn't make people richer on average. At best you can hope that the tax is very efficient and has low or no deadweight losses (like land value taxes), so that on average UBI doesn't make your society worse off. > The top 1% getting 1000x richer is a problem, because trickle down economics is bullshit. Money that exists as part of a pile of gold in a dragon's den does not move the economy. Huh? If what you said were true, the top 1% getting 1000x richer would merely not do anything, but it wouldn't be a problem per se. Btw, it's not a problem if someone just hoard some money: the central bank will notice that inflation is below target, and print more. (Later, when you spend from your hoard, the central bank will notice that, and correspondingly shrink the money supply.) Sticking money in a hoard is equivalent to giving an interest free loan to the central bank, because they can temporarily emit more money, while yours is out of circulation. However, rich people don't tend to keep cash in a vault. Most of them own companies or land etc.

voidhorse 1y ago
> However, rich people don't tend to keep cash in a vault. Most of them own companies or land etc. exactly. Which is the problem. You seem to actually have all the ingredients to be able to understand why this is a problem, but some kind of sympathy for the rich (lol) seems to prevent you from actually using logic to see the problem.
- eru 1y ago
  Sorry, I don't understand what problem you are seeing from people owning shares in eg publicly traded companies.
  - surgical_fire 1y ago
    Not a problem. But above a certain threshold it should be considered taxable wealth too.
  - voidhorse 1y ago
    Don't be silly. Smoking one cigarette is generally not problematic. Smoking thousands will tend to give you lung cancer. Nobody is arguing that people shouldn't own stocks. People are arguing that asset concentration taken to extremes is like smoking too many cigs: so enough and you force bad outcomes on society and the economic system.
johnecheck 1y ago
Your analysis is spot on. UBI funded by taxes is redistribution. Is that a bad thing? It would obviously have some negative effects. We'd immediately see damage to luxury brands and yacht sales. The art markets would crash. Stock markets would feel some pain. The upside though? My hunch is that making most people feel secure enough to risk starting/joining businesses is fuel for a strong and innovative economy. The fact that so few of us are able to take those risks is a constraint on growth.
- eru 1y ago
  > We'd immediately see damage to luxury brands and yacht sales. The art markets would crash. Stock markets would feel some pain. How do you make these confident predictions? I think it would depend a lot on how the UBI is, and exactly how you design the taxes to finance it (and how high those taxes are going to be).
  - johnecheck 1y ago
    My assumption is that UBI is a significant transfer of wealth from the richest to the rest. Isn't that the whole point? Exactly how to structure the taxes that pay for it is naturally a key question. Given that, it's pretty safe to assume markets that cater exclusively to the ultra-wealthy will be harmed by reduced demand as their customer base shrinks. Higher tax rates will also exert downward pressure ob stock values as companies make less profit and investors tighten their belts. (Especially if there's a wealth tax.)
surgical_fire 1y ago
> UBI plus the taxes that finance it are a redistribution scheme. Yes. That is desirable. > However, rich people don't tend to keep cash in a vault. Most of them own companies or land etc. And those too should be taxed. If it is wealth, it should be taxed.
- eru 1y ago
  I keep significant fraction of my wealth in eg my kidneys and healthy organs. Should they be taxed? How about taxing Brad Pitt for his good looks?

bigfishrunning 1y ago

The top 1% aren't sitting on a pile of gold in a dragon's den, their wealth is mostly invested. The amount of money Jeff Bezos owns in houses and boats is small in comparison to the amount of his wealth that is represented by stock in amazon; that money in amazon's hands is absolutely cycling through the economy.

surgical_fire 1y ago
> small in comparison to the amount of his wealth that is represented by stock in amazon That wealth should also be taxed. What makes stock ownership somehow holy that should be protected from taxation? We should stop conflating what a company generates as a consequence of their activity with the glorified gambling of the stock market.
- eru 1y ago
  Stock ownership isn't protected from taxation: there's capital gains tax to be paid (in many countries). > We should stop conflating what a company generates as a consequence of their activity with the glorified gambling of the stock market. Well, that might be a valid point for some people, but it's pointless for Zuckerberg or Bezos or Bill Gates or even Musk: those guys have been mostly holding their companies' stocks for ages. They don't buy and sell all the time. No 'glorified gambling the stock market' there. In any case, I brought up stock ownership as a concrete example of wealth that doesn't just site 'idle' in a vault somewhere. It's a claim on a productive enterprise that is only worth something because it serves customers and employs people etc.
KittenInABox 1y ago
Jeff Bezos can spend 50 million dollars on his wedding. Since that's a small amount of money compared to the amount of his stock in amazon, I think Jeff can actually afford to have his taxes raised on whatever he has on hand.
kaibee 1y ago
Look, its pretty simple. Here's a microcosm example: There is a German ship-builder that exclusively builds luxury yachts. They have ~2,000 highly skilled craftsmen, engineers, etc. This company only exists because wealth is concentrated enough to support a market for it. That company consumes about 4 million skilled-labor-hours a year to provide this service. This means that skilled-labor-hours are more scarce/expensive for _everyone_, because the on any given year, there are only so many skilled-labor hours that exist. These labor hours require about three decades of investment from society to produce (public education/childcare/etc). Bezos may not buy a super-yacht every year, but as a class, the super rich consume an insane labor hours.