4 ms·

1) When people don't need to produce value to live in the world, they will cease to produce value. 2) Ultimately it is not income that is needed to survive but

by bcheung 13y ago

1) When people don't need to produce value to live in the world, they will cease to produce value. 2) Ultimately it is not income that is needed to survive but resources properly organized. The cost of survival is getting cheaper and cheaper at an exponential rate. You wouldn't know that though because they keep raising the bar on what it means to "survive"—big screen tv, air conditioning, car, etc. The amount of work required to live according to living standards 100 years ago is rather minimal. 3) Where does this "basic income" come from? If you are taking it from others who produce value then how are you any better than a slave owner? The only difference is that instead of owning and taking the livelihood of an individual you are taking it from everyone collectively in smaller amounts. The moral principle is the same. 4) Why would people work if they can just take from others? Everyone will do the least amount possible because everyone else is just going to take their profits so why bother. Communism didn't work so why are you proposing it now? 5) You can't protect people from being stupid. Unless you are physically handicapped or retarded, in which case there is charity and family, it's really pathetically easy to survive in today's world. You aren't being chased by tigers. Agricultural yields are 100x than they were just a short time ago. The Internet provides a vast amount of resources to better yourself. There are greater abundances than ever before and people are generally charitable towards others. If you can't survive under those conditions there is something wrong with you. 6) I find it offensive and an attack on my personal liberty that you would demand that I sacrifice my livelihood so that another doesn't have to work hard and make wise decisions.

iopq 13y ago
Well, it's the only way to be able to dissuade people from programs like welfare and food stamps. Practically, it's the only program that can succeed in doing so in the US. You don't think it would be a better system than we have now where making past a certain amount has a NEGATIVE effect on your income if you're a single mother? It's better to make closer to $30,000 as a single mother rather than $50,000 - you'll get to keep more of it because you qualify for more government programs. I think it's easier to disassemble these really perverse incentives if you replace it with something simpler. Then you can reduce social security benefits because of this, then turn to alimony and child support (no longer needed), etc. You can't do that without first giving an alternative to the status quo
- bcheung 13y ago
  I agree that the current system rewards people for consuming welfare and provides disincentives for them to work, but I don't think making the rest of the working population their slaves through taxes is a moral solution. I think a better solution would be along the lines of "How can we reduce the barriers of entry so that people can create their own success?" and "How can we shift the cultural motif of society from entitlement mentality to valuing hard work and the benefits that come from it?"
nirnira 13y ago
Thanks for being one of the least insane and retarded people on this comment thread.
orthecreedence 13y ago
> Everyone will do the least amount possible because everyone else is just going to take their profits so why bother Perhaps you're describing yourself? I know I'd be a lot more actively working on business ventures with a GBI. > Communism didn't work so why are you proposing it now? How is this communism? It's still promoting free market, but making it easier to start competing businesses and contribute to society. Yes some people will sit around collecting their check. That happens already. Most others will take the money and do something with it other than working at McDonalds. > Unless you are physically handicapped or retarded, in which case there is charity and family Yes, the free market has no use for these people. Let them rot. > I find it offensive and an attack on my personal liberty that you would demand that I sacrifice my livelihood so that another doesn't have to work hard and make wise decisions. I'm getting kind of sick of people throwing "liberty" around whenever GBI is brought up. You know what? You pay GBI taxes already. It's just that most of it goes into government overhead instead of the hands of the needy. What's more, there's a difference between your personal liberty (ie, the ability to buy a stupidly large car, the ability to go for a walk in the park, the ability to speak your mind without fear of government persecution) and your debt to society. We all have to pay into society, because society provides for us. It provides opportunities and protects those who are in need. You owe society. Not because it's stealing from you, but because it gave you everything you have. Everything in your life that you think you've built with your own blood and sweat? Maybe 10% of it was actually your doing if that. The other 90% of it was provided by society: the roads you drive on, the computer you type on, the phones you talk over, the doctor you go to when you're sick, the police keeping bullets from flying through your windows at night, ETC ETC. None of what any of us do would be possible without the infrastructure set up for us by others. The distinction between producers and non-producers is not your distinction to make. You owe society as a whole. Not just the producers. So let's stop pretending that everything we accomplish in life was completely our doing, because it's not. Let's also stop pretending that everything can have a price tag put on it and the free market will solve all our problems and make lazy, handicapped, insane, elderly people vanish (somewhere?). Part of your job as a citizen is to help provide for others because the same is done for you. So quit your whining and pony up.

by bcheung 13y ago

iopq 13y ago

Well, it's the only way to be able to dissuade people from programs like welfare and food stamps. Practically, it's the only program that can succeed in doing so in the US. You don't think it would be a better system than we have now where making past a certain amount has a NEGATIVE effect on your income if you're a single mother? It's better to make closer to $30,000 as a single mother rather than $50,000 - you'll get to keep more of it because you qualify for more government programs. I think it's easier to disassemble these really perverse incentives if you replace it with something simpler. Then you can reduce social security benefits because of this, then turn to alimony and child support (no longer needed), etc. You can't do that without first giving an alternative to the status quo

bcheung 13y ago
I agree that the current system rewards people for consuming welfare and provides disincentives for them to work, but I don't think making the rest of the working population their slaves through taxes is a moral solution. I think a better solution would be along the lines of "How can we reduce the barriers of entry so that people can create their own success?" and "How can we shift the cultural motif of society from entitlement mentality to valuing hard work and the benefits that come from it?"

nirnira 13y ago

Thanks for being one of the least insane and retarded people on this comment thread.

orthecreedence 13y ago

> Everyone will do the least amount possible because everyone else is just going to take their profits so why bother Perhaps you're describing yourself? I know I'd be a lot more actively working on business ventures with a GBI. > Communism didn't work so why are you proposing it now? How is this communism? It's still promoting free market, but making it easier to start competing businesses and contribute to society. Yes some people will sit around collecting their check. That happens already. Most others will take the money and do something with it other than working at McDonalds. > Unless you are physically handicapped or retarded, in which case there is charity and family Yes, the free market has no use for these people. Let them rot. > I find it offensive and an attack on my personal liberty that you would demand that I sacrifice my livelihood so that another doesn't have to work hard and make wise decisions. I'm getting kind of sick of people throwing "liberty" around whenever GBI is brought up. You know what? You pay GBI taxes already. It's just that most of it goes into government overhead instead of the hands of the needy. What's more, there's a difference between your personal liberty (ie, the ability to buy a stupidly large car, the ability to go for a walk in the park, the ability to speak your mind without fear of government persecution) and your debt to society. We all have to pay into society, because society provides for us. It provides opportunities and protects those who are in need. You owe society. Not because it's stealing from you, but because it gave you everything you have. Everything in your life that you think you've built with your own blood and sweat? Maybe 10% of it was actually your doing if that. The other 90% of it was provided by society: the roads you drive on, the computer you type on, the phones you talk over, the doctor you go to when you're sick, the police keeping bullets from flying through your windows at night, ETC ETC. None of what any of us do would be possible without the infrastructure set up for us by others. The distinction between producers and non-producers is not your distinction to make. You owe society as a whole. Not just the producers. So let's stop pretending that everything we accomplish in life was completely our doing, because it's not. Let's also stop pretending that everything can have a price tag put on it and the free market will solve all our problems and make lazy, handicapped, insane, elderly people vanish (somewhere?). Part of your job as a citizen is to help provide for others because the same is done for you. So quit your whining and pony up.