3 ms·
By 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?
by kevinskii 14y ago
By 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.