4 ms·
You seem to have suggested that there are legitimate reasons for someone to buy a smart phone or large television using government benefits. If this is not what
by kevinskii 14y ago
You seem to have suggested that there are legitimate reasons for someone to buy a smart phone or large television using government benefits. If this is not what you meant, then kindly clarify.
- mkr-hn 14y agoThe point of a basic income is to ensure everyone has the means to improve their standing, and keep from sliding into abject poverty. Any use of the funds that furthers that goal is legitimate. Social pressure can be exerted to limit frivolous uses, but it's easy for that to go too far and become counterproductive. The worst that happens is someone has more than they need. And then what happens? One of two things: 1: It sits in the bank, where it's lent out for investment 2: It's spent, possibly on something optional but still legitimately useful and non-frivolous, in which case it flows back out into the economy I don't see a bad outcome. The vast majority of people want to have the self-esteem boost of fulfilling employment, and will seek it out once they're not stuck in the welfare trap. There's even a solid chance this will bring civilization to a point where no one needs a minimum income.
- kevinskii 14y agoBy your logic, it would be perfectly ok for the government to give each of us a billion dollars a year. Is this what you believe? If not, why not?
- mkr-hn 14y agoWe're talking about basic income for the purpose of ending poverty, not giving people a billion dollars every year for some undefined purpose. Your hypothetical is nonsense.
- kevinskii 14y agoOf course it's nonsense. And if you articulate why, I think you would see that your basic income argument is nonsense for mostly the same reason. I'm probably just preaching to the choir, so you can have the last word if you want it.
- mkr-hn 14y agoI'm sure there's some useful academic term for what you're doing here.
- kragen 14y agoI think it's called "reasoning" or "logic".
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- lilsunnybee 14y agoAppeal to ridicule? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule
- lilsunnybee 14y agoNo your point specifically is nonsense, because its a false comparison. Having a basic billion dollars would be massive wealth redistribution, as opposed to minor, and would have many additional negative consequences due to the severity of it.
- sans-serif 14y agoBut why not a billion dollars? The worst that happens is someone has more than they need. And then what happens? One of two things: 1: It sits in the bank, where it's lent out for investment 2: It's spent, possibly on something optional but still legitimately useful and non-frivolous, in which case it flows back out into the economy I don't see a bad outcome..!
- mkr-hn 14y agoPeople who win the lottery often end up worse off than when they started. Giving everyone a multiple of the highest lottery winning every year would be destructive.
- lilsunnybee 14y agoThat would be a massive redistribution of wealth, much more than needed. The billion wouldn't end up being a billion though, due to runaway inflation.
- rictic 14y agomkr-hn's describing (as I read it) redistribution of wealth. The problem with your suggestion is that it would necessarily create runaway inflation, because there's no way to square that payout with government tax income. You can have redistribution of wealth without runaway inflation, there are a number of existence proofs of this.
- nitrogen 14y agoWhy should you be the one to choose the particular definition of "enough" that applies to everyone?