4 ms·
Until the point where we decide that <$1000 a month is inhumane. "Who could live off of that?" says the next politician in line. "If I'm elected, you get $2,000
by wallawe 13y ago
Until the point where we decide that <$1000 a month is inhumane. "Who could live off of that?" says the next politician in line. "If I'm elected, you get $2,000 a month." Why not provide everyone with $5k a month. I think that is a reasonable amount to lift anyone out of poverty. That seems fair, right?
The problem is, in essence, all you are doing is disincentivizing one person to work by paying them with another person who has chosen to work. Money is the ultimate incentive. Not to mentioned the effects on the overall economy. What do you think happens when everyone has more money to spend? Prices go up, and your 5k/month becomes worth what 2k was a few years ago.
- rprospero 13y agoNot everyone will have more money to spend. The proposal isn't based on printing more money, but shifting it around through taxes. In fact, it can lead to deflation. Assume that Alice has a million dollars and Bob has nothing. Eve sells pumpkins. She's currently charging $1000 per pumpkin, which cost her $100 to grow. She makes $900 profit. Now, we add the minimum income proposal. Alice is taxed $900 and this $900 is given to Bob. Even would then lower her price to $900. Bob is better offer, since he now has a pumpkin. Eve is better off, as she made $1600 in profit, as opposed to her old 900. Alice is out $800 dollars compared to the old system, but that's less than the $900 she was taxed. Of course, this was just an example and there's no guarantee that it would go down this way. On the other hand, there's no evidence that it must head down the inflation road, either.