3 ms·

> So what? He's pointing out that it's a practical impossibility. The money for UBI has to come from somewhere, and any money a government has at its disposal

> So what? He's pointing out that it's a practical impossibility. The money for UBI has to come from somewhere, and any money a government has at its disposal comes from: 1) extortion (ie. taxation), 2) printing, 3) borrowing. Those are the three options, and none of them are a sustainable way to fund UBI, because the amount of money needed is so massive. You can't get something from nothing, and everyone can't get something from everyone else.

atmosx 13y ago
> He's pointing out that it's a practical impossibility. I'm not convinced that it is NOT financially viable. Especially in Switzerland where the governance is exemplary compared to other countries. I believe it is, only a real world example will convince me and Switzerland IMHO is the perfect country to run this experiment. The fact that you equate taxation with extortion for example, shows that you have a different, not necessarily wrong, starting point than me.
- whatevsbro 13y ago
  > I'm not convinced that it is NOT financially viable. Especially in Switzerland where the governance is exemplary compared to other countries. It's not about the "quality" of your "governance", ie. "how satisfactorily you're enslaved". It's just that all money a government hands out to people has to come from somewhere, and each of the ways of acquiring the money has negative, compounding consequences. > The fact that you equate taxation with extortion for example, shows that you have a different, not necessarily wrong, starting point than me. True. But if you think about it for a moment, you'll realize it actually meets the criteria for extortion. You're handing over your money under threat of violence, even if the violence is X steps removed from where you are now. No one would pay taxes without the threat of violence. If you were just asked nicely: "would you like to support yet another war in the Middle-East with a few thousand dollars?", you'd just decline and go on with your life, and that's exactly why they don't just ask nicely, they force you to pay.
  - ahomescu1 13y ago
    > No one would pay taxes without the threat of violence. If you were just asked nicely: "would you like to support yet another war in the Middle-East with a few thousand dollars?", you'd just decline and go on with your life, and that's exactly why they don't just ask nicely, they force you to pay. I agree with the rest of your points, but not necessarily with this one. Many people do pay taxes voluntarily, because "it's their civic duty", and roads and schools and all of that.
    - whatevsbro 13y ago
      > Many people do pay taxes voluntarily, because "it's their civic duty", and roads and schools and all of that. If it were genuinely voluntary, they could just stop any time they wanted to, without any negative consequences. We all know they can't - they'll be forcefully hauled into jail, and their property will be confiscated.
      - ahomescu1 13y ago
        Sure, but my point was that that's not the main reason; they genuinely want to pay for some of the stuff that comes out of taxes (like police, firefighters, public schools and roads). The point is this: if you don't want to stop paying taxes, why does it matter that you can't? (to some people it matters, but to many it doesn't)
        whatevsbro 13y ago
        >> Many people do pay taxes voluntarily You claimed people pay taxes voluntarily, but that is incorrect. Even if some people don't mind paying them now, they can't stop either. Your willingness to pay them is separate from whether you have a choice.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    "True. But if you think about it for a moment, you'll realize it actually meets the criteria for extortion. You're handing over your money under threat of violence, even if the violence is X steps removed from where you are now." If I take your laptop, is it extortion when you demand its return? At some point you may resort to violence (or have someone else do it on your behalf), so, that's extortion right? I would say no, because we have collectively agreed that property rights should usually be enforced - the mere fact that I possess your laptop doesn't mean it is rightfully mine. Likewise, we have collectively agreed (through the process of government, with all its flaws) to pay certain amounts in tax in certain situations. Asking for something that in someone's possession but that they don't actually have right to is not what extortion is.
loup-vaillant 13y ago
> The money […] has to come from somewhere Not necessarily. Money can be printed out of thin air. It is printed out of thin air right now, mostly by private banks (I know they're not technically printing money, but Fractional Reserve Banking and other shenanigans have the same practical effects). Of course, once you're explicit about printing money, you need to be careful about inflation. But we shouldn't fool ourselves: we never ever lacked money. Money isn't scarce. What we may lack however are resources (both renewable and fossil), and labour. But in this era of massive unemployment, it looks like labour isn't the bottleneck.
- smsm42 13y ago
  Money are used as a replacement of resources. By printing money out of thin air you make the same amount of money signify less amount of resources. This is very profitable to those who print money and very unprofitable for those who holds these money but need resources instead. So printing money is just a redistributive program that takes resources from savers. In severe form, from anybody having money, even for a short term (this is called hyperinflation). So when we're talking about "money has to come from somewhere", we're of course talking about resources, "printing money" is just a sneaky way to extract resources from those who delayed their consumption of resources they produced, foolishly trusting the government to preserve their value by exchanging them for a government-controlled money. And these resources are not infinite, they are scarce. Moreover, if you start extracting a lot of resources from those foolish people, they start noticing and no longer entrust their savings to the government that takes too much from them. And then the government finds itself with a lot of people who were promised non-scarce money but don't have any resources to back them up. And you can't eat money, so situation becomes sour pretty quickly at that point.
  - toomuchtodo 13y ago
    > And these resources are not infinite, they are scarce. This is the crux right here. The government no longer providers you money as BI. It provides you with the right to housing (build up), the right to energy (one person can only use so many KwHs/day), the right to worldwide communications (I think we can all agree the price of moving bits is going to continue to fall), the right to food, and the right to transportation (electric self-driving vehicles). With enough wind, solar, nuclear power, with self driving cars, with automated manufacturing and farming, you don't need money. You simply provide for your citizens their basic essentials. The people who want to work, will. The people who don't aren't a burden, because robots don't resent.

atmosx 13y ago

> He's pointing out that it's a practical impossibility. I'm not convinced that it is NOT financially viable. Especially in Switzerland where the governance is exemplary compared to other countries. I believe it is, only a real world example will convince me and Switzerland IMHO is the perfect country to run this experiment. The fact that you equate taxation with extortion for example, shows that you have a different, not necessarily wrong, starting point than me.

whatevsbro 13y ago
> I'm not convinced that it is NOT financially viable. Especially in Switzerland where the governance is exemplary compared to other countries. It's not about the "quality" of your "governance", ie. "how satisfactorily you're enslaved". It's just that all money a government hands out to people has to come from somewhere, and each of the ways of acquiring the money has negative, compounding consequences. > The fact that you equate taxation with extortion for example, shows that you have a different, not necessarily wrong, starting point than me. True. But if you think about it for a moment, you'll realize it actually meets the criteria for extortion. You're handing over your money under threat of violence, even if the violence is X steps removed from where you are now. No one would pay taxes without the threat of violence. If you were just asked nicely: "would you like to support yet another war in the Middle-East with a few thousand dollars?", you'd just decline and go on with your life, and that's exactly why they don't just ask nicely, they force you to pay.
- ahomescu1 13y ago
  > No one would pay taxes without the threat of violence. If you were just asked nicely: "would you like to support yet another war in the Middle-East with a few thousand dollars?", you'd just decline and go on with your life, and that's exactly why they don't just ask nicely, they force you to pay. I agree with the rest of your points, but not necessarily with this one. Many people do pay taxes voluntarily, because "it's their civic duty", and roads and schools and all of that.
  - whatevsbro 13y ago
    > Many people do pay taxes voluntarily, because "it's their civic duty", and roads and schools and all of that. If it were genuinely voluntary, they could just stop any time they wanted to, without any negative consequences. We all know they can't - they'll be forcefully hauled into jail, and their property will be confiscated.
    - ahomescu1 13y ago
      Sure, but my point was that that's not the main reason; they genuinely want to pay for some of the stuff that comes out of taxes (like police, firefighters, public schools and roads). The point is this: if you don't want to stop paying taxes, why does it matter that you can't? (to some people it matters, but to many it doesn't)
      - whatevsbro 13y ago
        >> Many people do pay taxes voluntarily You claimed people pay taxes voluntarily, but that is incorrect. Even if some people don't mind paying them now, they can't stop either. Your willingness to pay them is separate from whether you have a choice.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  "True. But if you think about it for a moment, you'll realize it actually meets the criteria for extortion. You're handing over your money under threat of violence, even if the violence is X steps removed from where you are now." If I take your laptop, is it extortion when you demand its return? At some point you may resort to violence (or have someone else do it on your behalf), so, that's extortion right? I would say no, because we have collectively agreed that property rights should usually be enforced - the mere fact that I possess your laptop doesn't mean it is rightfully mine. Likewise, we have collectively agreed (through the process of government, with all its flaws) to pay certain amounts in tax in certain situations. Asking for something that in someone's possession but that they don't actually have right to is not what extortion is.

loup-vaillant 13y ago

> The money […] has to come from somewhere Not necessarily. Money can be printed out of thin air. It is printed out of thin air right now, mostly by private banks (I know they're not technically printing money, but Fractional Reserve Banking and other shenanigans have the same practical effects). Of course, once you're explicit about printing money, you need to be careful about inflation. But we shouldn't fool ourselves: we never ever lacked money. Money isn't scarce. What we may lack however are resources (both renewable and fossil), and labour. But in this era of massive unemployment, it looks like labour isn't the bottleneck.

smsm42 13y ago
Money are used as a replacement of resources. By printing money out of thin air you make the same amount of money signify less amount of resources. This is very profitable to those who print money and very unprofitable for those who holds these money but need resources instead. So printing money is just a redistributive program that takes resources from savers. In severe form, from anybody having money, even for a short term (this is called hyperinflation). So when we're talking about "money has to come from somewhere", we're of course talking about resources, "printing money" is just a sneaky way to extract resources from those who delayed their consumption of resources they produced, foolishly trusting the government to preserve their value by exchanging them for a government-controlled money. And these resources are not infinite, they are scarce. Moreover, if you start extracting a lot of resources from those foolish people, they start noticing and no longer entrust their savings to the government that takes too much from them. And then the government finds itself with a lot of people who were promised non-scarce money but don't have any resources to back them up. And you can't eat money, so situation becomes sour pretty quickly at that point.
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
  > And these resources are not infinite, they are scarce. This is the crux right here. The government no longer providers you money as BI. It provides you with the right to housing (build up), the right to energy (one person can only use so many KwHs/day), the right to worldwide communications (I think we can all agree the price of moving bits is going to continue to fall), the right to food, and the right to transportation (electric self-driving vehicles). With enough wind, solar, nuclear power, with self driving cars, with automated manufacturing and farming, you don't need money. You simply provide for your citizens their basic essentials. The people who want to work, will. The people who don't aren't a burden, because robots don't resent.