5 ms·

Because you have to live in a society with those other people. Because that's going to be YOU in the future. Because it's going to be your kids, your cousins, y

by ahoy 1y ago

Because you have to live in a society with those other people. Because that's going to be YOU in the future. Because it's going to be your kids, your cousins, your neighbors.

motorest 1y ago
> Because you have to live in a society with those other people. Your reply was a strawman arguments, and fails to address OP's point. The point is quite simple and straight-forward: if your argument for UBI is that people could hypothetically pursue their interests, why should I have to be the one having to work to pay the taxes required to finance this income redistribution scheme only to have others, perhaps less talented and dedicated than me, pursue my interests at my expense?
- wrs 1y ago
  You would have the option to do what they’re doing if you prefer. You just wouldn’t have as much disposable income. Why are you pay for other people to use the roads or have their fires put out or have health care? Because society is more pleasant overall if everyone can assume a baseline availability for those things.
  - motorest 1y ago
    > You would have the option to do what they’re doing if you prefer. You just wouldn’t have as much disposable income. That's fantastic. So let's build upon your personal belief, and as the system is universal then your recommendation is extended to everyone subscribing to the service. Now please explain how you expect to finance an income redistribution scheme where all participants do not contribute back and instead only expect to consume from it.
    - _DeadFred_ 1y ago
      VCs fund a lot of companies, even though they only get a return on a few. The government routinely gives out subsidies to industries they want to encourage, knowing that only a few that receive the subsidies will generate a return. This isn't a novel/unworkable concept, a lot of our economy is currently based off of it actual, you just don't like it. Some people think if you fund people's ability to live, so that they aren't killing themselves going to multiple jobs, not sleeping, not raising their kids, remove fears like 'insurance is tied to this job so I can't leave it', etc, you will encourage an economic renaissance, just like VC funding has created a renaissance for the pocketbooks of VC funders.
      - motorest 1y ago
        > VCs fund a lot of companies, even though they only get a return on a few. You're not talking about long-shot bets in a system where everyone is expected to produce. You're talking about income redistribution schemes. This means today's salary is used to finance today's benefits. Please explain who do you expect to foot the bill when the system pressures those who sustain it to abandon that and instead add to the pool of consumers.
        _DeadFred_ 1y ago
        No, I am talking about investing, not bets, in every person, improving their lot, which in turn will improve society's productivity. If I go from watering 10% of my garden to 100%, I get better returns. A mom working 2 horrible jobs with varying hours can not raise a healthy new member of society. Freeing her to do so lifts ALL of society. There are lots of factors that will improve. People no longer just barely hanging on can start re-investing in themselves, their ideas, their skills. People not afraid if their idea fails will start new businesses. If anything business and capital flow will increase and flourish.
      - just_some_guy_2 1y ago
        Denmark already have a limited form of the UBI when seen in that light. The state offers free education and a monthly "basic income" for people studying for a degree, for up to five years. Sure, some people waste it. Some are just passive consumers, even shopping around between multiple educations without ever completing a degree. Some drop out half-way. Some get impractical degrees with few real job opportunities. But enough people go on to become doctors and engineers and software developers and so on, and then have long careers that ultimately pays back the venture capital to the state, in the form of taxes. Most also work a side-job while studying to supplement the "basic income" stipend. I don't personally believe that the majority of people will become unproductive consumers with an UBI. I think that societal pressure to contribute, the wish to enjoy luxuries, and to get status is enough for the majority to still work. I think that the added safety net of the UBI will also allow more people to take a risk on a dream, and perhaps make it big in art, in inventing new stuff, in science or in politics. And, as in VC investments, the few big hits will hopefully pay for the failures.
    - ownagefool 1y ago
      I think the overriding idea is a UBI would only result in a modest living and luxury would cost more. That's where many of the practical issues come in of course. I'm not going to personally argue they're not solvable, but many people will argue the requirements of basic shelter and sustenance being far higher than what they actually are, and in our current system, the landlords would take the cash anyways. Of course, if we all end up jobless due to robotics and AI enhancement, which again isn't something that's necessarily going to happen, UBI or similar might be the only positive path out of that mess.
    - WorldMaker 1y ago
      A lot of the "magic" of UBI ideas is the time value of money and a lot of the same fundamental concepts as other forms of passive income. One way to think of it is your Government making a massive investment in "short term loans": your UBI payment is a loan of $X on April 16th with an expectation to pay Y% of $X back on April 15th of the following year (as the taxes you owe on the income you made that year). If Y% is greater than or equal to 100% it is exactly a loan, with interest. If Y% is less than 100% it is a government subsidized loan. A lot of the debate inside UBI discussion is what is the most effective Y%, and a lot of the beliefs about UBI is that you can do it with a surprisingly small Y% for among the same reasons that the Federal Reserve can give 0% loans to most banks. If they can give such favorable terms to short term loans to banks, why can't they give that to average citizens? When you look at all the complex deductions in the existing tax code as existing loans with favorable percent and add them together, that also drops your Y% and potentially simplifies things. (Instead of deducting lots of individual line items, you shift Y% individually, the terms of your personal annual loan agreement. Or you can leave Y% consistent and adjust $X up to replace deductions with larger loans.) If "everyone" lives on $X - Y% * $X for an entire year the loans are fully repaid each year and the government isn't "losing money" on its "loan terms" and is meeting the subsidies people expect from their government. That's not a "losing" situation. (It's not a likely scenario either, because at least some people are always going to want more than $X - Y% * $X dollars a year for their lifestyle or their dreams or their investments or their philanthropy or their vices.) (ETA: It's also not directly an assumption in every form of UBI that Y% is less than 100%. There are UBI schools of thought that because of the time value of money, some charged interest is not only possible, but potentially a good idea as an incentive to invest the UBI payment in more than just mortgage/rent/lifestyle, but also something that does appreciate you with interest, such as the opportunity cost of accepting a job or a basic savings account. I tend towards the Y% <= 100% feelings, but I understand the Y% > 100% crowd.)
  - eschaton 1y ago
    The above poster is basically just repeating libertarian “free market cannot fail” talking points, and probably feels terribly aggrieved that they have to pay for other people to use the roads or have their fires put out or have health care too. In other words, they’ve outed themselves as a Randroid and their opinion on matters of economics and public policy is worth just as much as Ayn Rand’s: Nothing, or even less.
- anigbrowl 1y ago
  The point is hollow, as is your restatement of it why should I have to be the one having to work to pay the taxes required You're not. You are not the only person paying tax. And far more of your tax bill is going toward subsidizing people and industries who are already rolling in money than helping relieve the burden on the poor. I'm not saying you should pay more tax, you should probably be paying less. But we should reorganize the economy away from rewarding ownership of property as if it were productive economic economy activity in and of itself.
  - motorest 1y ago
    > The point is hollow, as is your restatement of it No. I'm not sure if you failed to understand the question or you tried to avoid it. My question refers to the core argument involving any economic system: fairness and equity. Why are you trying to avoid touching on the topic? > You're not. You are not the only person paying tax. Yes, I am. Everyone is forced to pay taxes, and I am no different. In income redistribution schemes such as UBI you get a chunk of your salary taken straight from your pay check to finance other paychecks. So far this sort of scheme is used to cover salaries representing social safety nets such as pensions, disability, and temporarily for unemployed. UBI radically changes that, as it goes well beyond the role of social safety net and unconditionally extends this to everyone. So now you are faced with a scenario where you have two classes of people: those who sustain the scheme and make it possible, and those who only consume it's resources. Even if you try to argue there's a net benefit to society, you must face the problem of lack of equity. For instance, how do you justify to people like OP that they should continue working at their jobs so that others can have the privilege of pursuing their personal interests? If you argue that OP is also free to quit his job to pursue his interests then you're advocating for an income redistribution scheme that presssures participants to not contribute to it and instead consume the resources it manages to mobilize.
    - CuriousSkeptic 1y ago
      > income redistribution schemes such as UBI It’s a common framing, but UBI does not have to be that. Another may be that of a just compensation for giving up access to land. > Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrarian_Justice https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrarian_Justice
- pineaux 1y ago
  Its not a strawman. The argument is: because you need the other people in the society. You need them for basically everything. You have built your life on shoulders of others. Everything you can do, you can do because you profit from other's labour. That is why. You would not have culture, language, computers, roads, garbage collection, nursing homes, music to listen to, etc. You have enjoyed all these things "at the expense" of the people who did that for you.
  - motorest 1y ago
    > Its not a strawman. The argument is: because you need the other people in the society. No. Your argument is that other people exist. That's great, everyone had the right to exist. But in the meantime, why do you think that just because someone else exists that means I am obliged to work a job to pay off their bills? And if you answer with a puerile and superficial "but you can also quit your job" then who exactly do you expect to foot the bill? Age you envisioning a society where no one contributes to it?
    - _DeadFred_ 1y ago
      Society is a perfectly valid response to your question. You are used to a certain society, societal rules that doesn't care about it's people. OP feels like society should be more than that. And simply that thought, that society shouldn't let people die on the street, that mom's should be able to raise their kids not forced to work two jobs, should encourage people to do XYZ, is a totally valid response to your question.
      - motorest 1y ago
        > Society is a perfectly valid response to your question. You are used to a certain society, societal rules that doesn't care about it's people. No, it's quite the opposite actually: you clearly do not care about society if you see it as an ATM to unconditionally fund your whims and cravings all while rejecting any need to contribute back. I'm asking s very simple question you are trying to avoid answering: why is it fair for those who actually sacrifice themselves to work to fund those who opt to not work. Explain exactly what is fair in having workers support actual freeloaders in society? I mean, you are not talking about social safety nets. You're talking about unconfitional basic incomes. You do nothing, and you get a salary in return. Explain in clear terms how is it fair to those who actual work to see their labor appropriated by those who choose not to work, which might very well be their own colleagues. Explain where is the fairness and equity in this.
- Workaccount2 1y ago
  Because the guy sticking out 60 hours a week at the office to get a comfortable middle class life loves his job just as much as the painter traveling to do his national parks series. Therefore the government can tax the office worker and use the proceeds to buy the artists paintings and utopia is here!

by ahoy 1y ago

Because you have to live in a society with those other people. Because that's going to be YOU in the future. Because it's going to be your kids, your cousins, your neighbors.

motorest 1y ago

> Because you have to live in a society with those other people. Your reply was a strawman arguments, and fails to address OP's point. The point is quite simple and straight-forward: if your argument for UBI is that people could hypothetically pursue their interests, why should I have to be the one having to work to pay the taxes required to finance this income redistribution scheme only to have others, perhaps less talented and dedicated than me, pursue my interests at my expense?

wrs 1y ago
You would have the option to do what they’re doing if you prefer. You just wouldn’t have as much disposable income. Why are you pay for other people to use the roads or have their fires put out or have health care? Because society is more pleasant overall if everyone can assume a baseline availability for those things.
- motorest 1y ago
  > You would have the option to do what they’re doing if you prefer. You just wouldn’t have as much disposable income. That's fantastic. So let's build upon your personal belief, and as the system is universal then your recommendation is extended to everyone subscribing to the service. Now please explain how you expect to finance an income redistribution scheme where all participants do not contribute back and instead only expect to consume from it.
  - _DeadFred_ 1y ago
    VCs fund a lot of companies, even though they only get a return on a few. The government routinely gives out subsidies to industries they want to encourage, knowing that only a few that receive the subsidies will generate a return. This isn't a novel/unworkable concept, a lot of our economy is currently based off of it actual, you just don't like it. Some people think if you fund people's ability to live, so that they aren't killing themselves going to multiple jobs, not sleeping, not raising their kids, remove fears like 'insurance is tied to this job so I can't leave it', etc, you will encourage an economic renaissance, just like VC funding has created a renaissance for the pocketbooks of VC funders.
    - motorest 1y ago
      > VCs fund a lot of companies, even though they only get a return on a few. You're not talking about long-shot bets in a system where everyone is expected to produce. You're talking about income redistribution schemes. This means today's salary is used to finance today's benefits. Please explain who do you expect to foot the bill when the system pressures those who sustain it to abandon that and instead add to the pool of consumers.
      - _DeadFred_ 1y ago
        No, I am talking about investing, not bets, in every person, improving their lot, which in turn will improve society's productivity. If I go from watering 10% of my garden to 100%, I get better returns. A mom working 2 horrible jobs with varying hours can not raise a healthy new member of society. Freeing her to do so lifts ALL of society. There are lots of factors that will improve. People no longer just barely hanging on can start re-investing in themselves, their ideas, their skills. People not afraid if their idea fails will start new businesses. If anything business and capital flow will increase and flourish.
    - just_some_guy_2 1y ago
      Denmark already have a limited form of the UBI when seen in that light. The state offers free education and a monthly "basic income" for people studying for a degree, for up to five years. Sure, some people waste it. Some are just passive consumers, even shopping around between multiple educations without ever completing a degree. Some drop out half-way. Some get impractical degrees with few real job opportunities. But enough people go on to become doctors and engineers and software developers and so on, and then have long careers that ultimately pays back the venture capital to the state, in the form of taxes. Most also work a side-job while studying to supplement the "basic income" stipend. I don't personally believe that the majority of people will become unproductive consumers with an UBI. I think that societal pressure to contribute, the wish to enjoy luxuries, and to get status is enough for the majority to still work. I think that the added safety net of the UBI will also allow more people to take a risk on a dream, and perhaps make it big in art, in inventing new stuff, in science or in politics. And, as in VC investments, the few big hits will hopefully pay for the failures.
  - ownagefool 1y ago
    I think the overriding idea is a UBI would only result in a modest living and luxury would cost more. That's where many of the practical issues come in of course. I'm not going to personally argue they're not solvable, but many people will argue the requirements of basic shelter and sustenance being far higher than what they actually are, and in our current system, the landlords would take the cash anyways. Of course, if we all end up jobless due to robotics and AI enhancement, which again isn't something that's necessarily going to happen, UBI or similar might be the only positive path out of that mess.
  - WorldMaker 1y ago
    A lot of the "magic" of UBI ideas is the time value of money and a lot of the same fundamental concepts as other forms of passive income. One way to think of it is your Government making a massive investment in "short term loans": your UBI payment is a loan of $X on April 16th with an expectation to pay Y% of $X back on April 15th of the following year (as the taxes you owe on the income you made that year). If Y% is greater than or equal to 100% it is exactly a loan, with interest. If Y% is less than 100% it is a government subsidized loan. A lot of the debate inside UBI discussion is what is the most effective Y%, and a lot of the beliefs about UBI is that you can do it with a surprisingly small Y% for among the same reasons that the Federal Reserve can give 0% loans to most banks. If they can give such favorable terms to short term loans to banks, why can't they give that to average citizens? When you look at all the complex deductions in the existing tax code as existing loans with favorable percent and add them together, that also drops your Y% and potentially simplifies things. (Instead of deducting lots of individual line items, you shift Y% individually, the terms of your personal annual loan agreement. Or you can leave Y% consistent and adjust $X up to replace deductions with larger loans.) If "everyone" lives on $X - Y% * $X for an entire year the loans are fully repaid each year and the government isn't "losing money" on its "loan terms" and is meeting the subsidies people expect from their government. That's not a "losing" situation. (It's not a likely scenario either, because at least some people are always going to want more than $X - Y% * $X dollars a year for their lifestyle or their dreams or their investments or their philanthropy or their vices.) (ETA: It's also not directly an assumption in every form of UBI that Y% is less than 100%. There are UBI schools of thought that because of the time value of money, some charged interest is not only possible, but potentially a good idea as an incentive to invest the UBI payment in more than just mortgage/rent/lifestyle, but also something that does appreciate you with interest, such as the opportunity cost of accepting a job or a basic savings account. I tend towards the Y% <= 100% feelings, but I understand the Y% > 100% crowd.)
- eschaton 1y ago
  The above poster is basically just repeating libertarian “free market cannot fail” talking points, and probably feels terribly aggrieved that they have to pay for other people to use the roads or have their fires put out or have health care too. In other words, they’ve outed themselves as a Randroid and their opinion on matters of economics and public policy is worth just as much as Ayn Rand’s: Nothing, or even less.
anigbrowl 1y ago
The point is hollow, as is your restatement of it why should I have to be the one having to work to pay the taxes required You're not. You are not the only person paying tax. And far more of your tax bill is going toward subsidizing people and industries who are already rolling in money than helping relieve the burden on the poor. I'm not saying you should pay more tax, you should probably be paying less. But we should reorganize the economy away from rewarding ownership of property as if it were productive economic economy activity in and of itself.
- motorest 1y ago
  > The point is hollow, as is your restatement of it No. I'm not sure if you failed to understand the question or you tried to avoid it. My question refers to the core argument involving any economic system: fairness and equity. Why are you trying to avoid touching on the topic? > You're not. You are not the only person paying tax. Yes, I am. Everyone is forced to pay taxes, and I am no different. In income redistribution schemes such as UBI you get a chunk of your salary taken straight from your pay check to finance other paychecks. So far this sort of scheme is used to cover salaries representing social safety nets such as pensions, disability, and temporarily for unemployed. UBI radically changes that, as it goes well beyond the role of social safety net and unconditionally extends this to everyone. So now you are faced with a scenario where you have two classes of people: those who sustain the scheme and make it possible, and those who only consume it's resources. Even if you try to argue there's a net benefit to society, you must face the problem of lack of equity. For instance, how do you justify to people like OP that they should continue working at their jobs so that others can have the privilege of pursuing their personal interests? If you argue that OP is also free to quit his job to pursue his interests then you're advocating for an income redistribution scheme that presssures participants to not contribute to it and instead consume the resources it manages to mobilize.
  - CuriousSkeptic 1y ago
    > income redistribution schemes such as UBI It’s a common framing, but UBI does not have to be that. Another may be that of a just compensation for giving up access to land. > Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrarian_Justice https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrarian_Justice
pineaux 1y ago
Its not a strawman. The argument is: because you need the other people in the society. You need them for basically everything. You have built your life on shoulders of others. Everything you can do, you can do because you profit from other's labour. That is why. You would not have culture, language, computers, roads, garbage collection, nursing homes, music to listen to, etc. You have enjoyed all these things "at the expense" of the people who did that for you.
- motorest 1y ago
  > Its not a strawman. The argument is: because you need the other people in the society. No. Your argument is that other people exist. That's great, everyone had the right to exist. But in the meantime, why do you think that just because someone else exists that means I am obliged to work a job to pay off their bills? And if you answer with a puerile and superficial "but you can also quit your job" then who exactly do you expect to foot the bill? Age you envisioning a society where no one contributes to it?
  - _DeadFred_ 1y ago
    Society is a perfectly valid response to your question. You are used to a certain society, societal rules that doesn't care about it's people. OP feels like society should be more than that. And simply that thought, that society shouldn't let people die on the street, that mom's should be able to raise their kids not forced to work two jobs, should encourage people to do XYZ, is a totally valid response to your question.
    - motorest 1y ago
      > Society is a perfectly valid response to your question. You are used to a certain society, societal rules that doesn't care about it's people. No, it's quite the opposite actually: you clearly do not care about society if you see it as an ATM to unconditionally fund your whims and cravings all while rejecting any need to contribute back. I'm asking s very simple question you are trying to avoid answering: why is it fair for those who actually sacrifice themselves to work to fund those who opt to not work. Explain exactly what is fair in having workers support actual freeloaders in society? I mean, you are not talking about social safety nets. You're talking about unconfitional basic incomes. You do nothing, and you get a salary in return. Explain in clear terms how is it fair to those who actual work to see their labor appropriated by those who choose not to work, which might very well be their own colleagues. Explain where is the fairness and equity in this.
Workaccount2 1y ago
Because the guy sticking out 60 hours a week at the office to get a comfortable middle class life loves his job just as much as the painter traveling to do his national parks series. Therefore the government can tax the office worker and use the proceeds to buy the artists paintings and utopia is here!