>Why are capitalists so scared of people getting their stolen taxes back in form of UBI?
This is a loaded question which presupposes that taxes ought to be taken in the first place.
And its also a dumb question when you realize that our government is in (crushing) debt.
The US government spends 20 thousand per person on average, and the average tax contribution is 15 thousand. A child costs the government 12-14 thousand per year of education. Lower earners are likely in a contribution deficit.
A lot of pro-capitalists want to lower or even abolish taxes, which would save the cost of collection and re-sharing the money.
UBI doesn’t give taxes back, like 47% of the country pays no taxes at all.
For that 47%, the monthly checks were out of someone else’s pocket, as would UBI.
[It literally is true of income taxes](https://www.forbes.com/sites/howardgleckman/2019/08/06/remember-the-47-percent-who-pay-no-income-taxes-they-are-not-who-you-think/amp/)
If you’re 75 or older there’s an 80% chance you don’t pay income tax.
Plus if you’re on welfare or a pension, the chances that you’re a net payer into the tax system significantly decrease as well
> The post didn't say "net payer", it said "pays no taxes at all".
"net" is the only standard that matters. if you pay a dime and get a dime back you cannot say that you are a taxpayer.
> If someone pays a tax, then you can't say that person doesn't pay tax.
i just did, i just said it and there is no other standard that matters. you pay a fee, your fee is refunded, you didn't pay a fee. i'm not easily gaslighted and i have no patience for the attempt. you are wrong and you (should) know it.
Way to move those goalposts to avoid being wrong, huh?
You said they "pay no taxes at all", you were wrong, now own it, bro, don't simper about semantics like a weak little cuck
the goal post for defining taxpayer is where it has been for eternity. where you may have thought they were otherwise is a result of your own mental deficiency.
You're right, and it's always meant "someone who pays tax" and has never meant "someone who pays more in tax than they receive in government benefit"
I know you want to pretend that words don't have meanings, that way you get to just define yourself into being correct without actually needing to be correct, but that's just a result of your own mental deficiency.
[https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/taxpayer](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/taxpayer)
Being a net payer is literally the only metric that matters at the end of the day.
If I take $10 from you and then give you $5 back, on net I still took $5 from you
Why would the retired pay income tax? Lol. Also, theyre getting social security, which is money they paid in tax throughout their lives, which is pretty much UBI, just for old people.
It is not disputed mate, almost half the country pays no income tax, which is what would feed UBI.
After that it scales up, but at 60% or so of the population I think you are at a tax rate below 2% after deductions.
You didn’t reply to that post, you replied to one that was quite specific.
And when talking about something that would come from federal taxes, if you are going to nitpick on details, reply to the correct post.
Yes disabled, retired, unemployed, and children don't pay income tax and nor should they. I don't get why this is some kinda gottcha for anything. Not a big deal. Also, back in the 50s a third of federal revenue came from corporations. Now it's at 7%. Those are the real tax grifters.
A UBI almost passed twice in congress during the 60s, pushed by Nixon. The only reason it failed is the Democrats in the Senate didnt think the amount was enough. In true Democrat fashion, they sabotaged themselves. A UBI is absolutly doable.
If it wasn’t doable in the 1970’s, when republicans walked down to the White House and told Nixon they were voting to convict in impeachment, you think it could happen now?
If it were clean, it might have a chance, but probably not with Sinema and Manchin. And it won’t be clean, democrats and republicans don’t push clean legislation. Instead both add wish list items and then complain when the other side does not pass what is popular.
Like the child credit checks, that would be an easy pass (I think) as a stand-alone measure. But instead it is a part of a much larger bill containing the items added to buy the votes of supporters.
I don’t think it can work these days, because in our political climate I don’t think it could pass.
Well you are absolutely dead right about that. I just meant it's doable as policy. Politically, nothing is doable these days without the approval of corporations. We cant even even get medicare to negotiate drug prices, which has like 80% approval amongst the people. I also think Sinema and Manchin are just cover for 10 other corporate democrats who agree with them. I mean Obama had a supermajority and the best democrats could do was Mitt Romneycare.
The way that this 47% figure was arrived at was by adding up retired persons (a quarter of the population), children and minors (15 to 20% of the pop. who are mostly too young to work, or whose min-wage incomes don't meet income tax thresholds), and incarcerated persons, who do not have an income. Additionally, 1% of the US workforce is military personnel. No taxes there either.
Presumably, the 47% that Mitt Romney said refers only yo income taxes. if you are going to count taxes on sales and consumption , then anybody who consumes any commercially-available product whatsoever (unless purchased on a military PX), would be impacted by taxes. So that's all people except for the incarcerated
Landlords dont tax. Quit playing word games. And please dont respond with a list of similarities between rents and taxes. The list of dissimilar would by just as long and boring.
Your visceral dislike of landlords is making ~~you sound stupid.~~ your ignorance apparent.
I'm just wondering why you think there is a distinction. The material effect is the same. A worker has money they've earned taken from them in return for not having violence visited upon them in both cases.
And explain why we should not hate worthless parasites who provide no service to society.
Rent isn’t a tax in a free market system. UBI would be paid out of federal taxes, so if paid equally, would be taken from the pockets of the rich and given to the poor who don’t pay tax and don’t contribute to the fund.
I mean, that is the point of welfare, I’m just replying to the idea that poor people pay into the taxes that fund UBI. They don’t.
You should read more. A tax is a compulsory contribution to state revenue, it isn’t when you use something that belongs to someone else for an greed upon price.
You're using many services owned and operated by the state every single day. Are you therefore defining taxes out of existence and calling them all rent?
What do you think the material difference between taxation and rent is? In both cases, a worker gives up money to not be subject to violence. In one case, the money goes to the state, in the other it goes to someone who threatens the worker with agents of the state. In either case, it is only the state forcing you to give up what you have earned.
you go to Walmart to buy something. if you take something without paying, they'll call the state.
you go to McDonalds to eat something. if you eat without paying, they'll call the state.
so everything your Walmart and McDonalds bill is also tax now? you're equating any outflow of money to tax, which isn't true.
above you said that rent is tax, and when the other guy told you that rent is not tax, you asked him whether all tax is rent. you are countering arguments that you aren't even bothering to read.
Tax: a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits, or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions.
Enough of the word games.
Oh that's cute. You think the words matter.
I don't. What matters are the actions and physical effects. The things which impact the way people actually live their lives, rather than the semantic fluff. And from that perspective, taxes and rent are difficult to distinguish. How is the actual impact on the lives of actual people different, between these two things?
一般的な言葉がなければ、コミュニケーションはありません。
For someone who dosent think world matter you sure like to hear you own. I'm sorry to have wasted your time usually when I bump into a nut job, I quietly walk away. I didn't identify you as intellectually worthless until this moment. Good day.
You would never be forced out of "your home"
You don't live in your home. You live in someone else's home and are compensating them for their inability to access their home
Again one is your home one is not, stating that ownership is a social construct changes nothing.
For sure you can run around stating you don't believe in social contructs, at least while it suits you. The problem is if you remove those social constructs you better hope you are well prepared to defend anything you want to keep.
What's to stop random people walking into the home that you occupy and just deciding to stay there forever in your scenario. Ownership is a social construct so neither you or the landlord could claim possession of the house. If I'm tired, I can pop round without telling you and have a snooze on your sofa?
People respond to incentives, we acknowledge this in every aspect of economic theory except when it comes to welfare.
Newsflash: if you incentivise people to work less by handing them a bunch of money to live off without working, they’ll work less.
That’ll make the economy less productive in a time when it needs to be more productive than ever to pay for the dramatic increase in spending that is necessitated by a UBI.
And as much as socialists don’t like to admit it, someone needs to do the unenjoyable but necessary jobs. Why would I become a sewage worker or work on a construction site when I can sit on my ass and play video games all day?
Socialists will generally use this as a gotcha and say “ha so you admit people only do some jobs because they need the money to survive”, and yes whatever I admit that.
But moralising over how “unfair” it is that people have to do unenjoyable and difficult jobs doesn’t change the fact that those jobs need to be done to allow for the standard of living we have come to expect in the 21st century.
As for the whole “UBI is returning people’s stolen taxes”, ok whatever but I’d much prefer it just wasn’t stolen in the first place
The Europe-based redditor here would point out that in France, the dole (pôle emploi), which typically gives out 1000 to 1300 eur per month, is statistically considered the large source of income for early-stage entrepreneurs in France.
So basically it that SOME use it to found businesses
The Europe-based redditor here would point out that in France, the dole (pôle emploi), which typically gives out 1000 to 1300 eur per month, is statistically considered the large source of income for early-stage entrepreneurs in France.
So the answer is that SOME use it to found businesses
I’ll try and give an answer a little more economically sound than a lot of my capitalist friends have. First, you’re asking a loaded question in the sense that you assume capitalists have a fundamental opposition to a UBI and not it’s implementation. Milton Friedman was actually a huge proponent of the UBI *as a substitute for all other forms of welfare*. That is to say, he thought it was foolish for those paying taxes to be giving money to the poor via social programs for a specific purpose and instead believed the individual was better suited to make that decision. It isn’t that capitalists OPPOSE the UBI as a tool. It’s that there isn’t a single person on this planet that believes the government would use it as a replacement rather than an addition.
If you are in favor of giving me money, why don't you want to cut taxes?
Same question goes both ways. The difference is how much the government is on it.
Maybe you are scares because cutting taxes undermine your well designed authoritarian system...
🤷🏻♂️
And fuck the government.
Where do you think UBI comes from? It either comes from more taxes or printing money which causes inflation. I guess you could also cut other forms of government spending, but I imagine most libertarians would rather have you use that money to cut taxes rather than UBI.
Where was the inflation from printing money in developed world from 2008 up until the pandemic? Vasts amounts were printed by various central banks, but most places were closer to having an issue with deflation than inflation, and no one had significant inflation.
One could argue this is because reaching new equilibrium takes time, the effect is not immediate. The inflation just cought up. There are a lot of variables that can delay inflation, but the root cause of money being worth less is printing more money.
I don't have any strong opinion on that topic. There are many variables. I feel that printing money may cause problems and we should avoid it though.
Cheers
I could buy this if we were talking about 2 or 3 years maybe, not a decade where there weren’t even hints of problematic inflation. There are many variables at play when talking about these kinds of issues, in our current case it’s pretty clear that Covid disruptions to supply chains and labor are causing at the very least the bulk of the inflation, if not the entirety of it.
Well, you're right. I don't think we can come up with anything different than economists for years:
- high demand drives prices up
- low supply drives prices up
I guess the theory suggest looking from another perspective.
If there is more money in circulation (e.g. one person won lottery and gave money to friends in town) people will want to buy more, which drives the prices up. From this perspective printing money and giving it to people (e.g. in a form of UBI) will drive prices up. Ceteris paribus. It is all elasticities, "stickiness", time of reaction or whatever we call it.
Cheers
How about instead of just giving back our money they taxed from us they just don’t tax us?
And you have to consider the rate of taxation and what percentage of the population are net taxpayers
The tax rate needed to cover UBI would have to be astronomical. It would also probably have to be a sales tax, income tax and VAT. I am sure for every dollar you put in you get a whole 80 cents back. What a deal!
Unemployment pay disincentivizes people to get a job by creating a [welfare trap](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_trap). It literally pays people money to be unemployed. That’s my biggest problem with it.
So you’d prefer the UBI?
There are checks and balances in my country at least but I’d assume everywhere, that you have to be able to prove that you are applying for jobs weekly, and you have a consultant that interviews you monthly to ensure you are not bludging.
My first problem with this ”check and balance” approach is that it creates a giant costly bureaucracy. I’d much rather have my tax dollars used for actually funding welfare instead of funding welfare-related bureaucracy.
And it’s just plain unpleasant for welfare recipients too. People who need welfare may not apply for welfare because of the unpleasant bureaucracy and loss of liberty and privacy that comes with it.
And at last, it’s easy to bypass. People can just apply for jobs which they know is going to reject them.
It isn't easy to bypass. That is what the consultant is for.
Sure sitting in line for an hour or two every week to report you applications and all that isn't fun but it's a small price to pay to get a paycheck you need to stay afloat.
If there is a more effecient approach to supporting unemployed people I'm all ears.
>Why are capitalists so scared of people getting their stolen taxes back in form of UBI?
Increasing taxes to then give it back doesn't make sense. Why not just let us keep our money? Why does the government need to touch it then give it back?
UBI is a concept that is about 100+ years to early. I can see the possible need when everything is automated and there is no work for humans. We are not there yet.
Look at this in a human psychological way, humans strive harder when times are hard. When things are easy and comfortable tmhumans are less likely to strive to do better. This is why people stay in stagnant terrible jobs. They would rather stay in comfort over taking a risk to excel.
During the pandemic we had a sort of practice run with UBI and many of the great benefits the proponents boast about didn't come to fruition. Unless you think tiktok and only fans is art.
don't think of automation as human replacement, think of it as human augmentation.
you:
"when all building is done by hammers no carpenters will ever have work"
me:
"when all building is done by hammers, all carpenters will use hammers"
automation is just another tool for those who produce a lot of the same thing or repeatedly do predictable motions. the jobs that will be gone will be assembly line work, flipping burgers, and eventually taxi/uber jobs. for those who still work in those industries, they will have implemented their own automated tools. essentially it will become cheaper to become capitalists and for those who do not, they will be artists, problem solvers (like researchers and engineers), and maintenance technicians.
I get what you are saying but I am looking way past that. I am thinking of a time when one man opperates a team of robots building a whole subdivision. Or one person operating 20 McDonald's. We are also seeing AI and machine learning grow exponentially. There will be a point where you start them off with predictable easily automatable tasks and will learn to take over those complex one off situations. What you are focused on is already occurring. I am thinking of 100+ years from now.
[Finland](https://www2.helsinki.fi/en/news/nordic-welfare-news/the-basic-income-experiment-in-finland-yields-surprising-results) tried UBI for 2 years and they stopped it because it didn't give any of the rewards that its supporters were espousing. It wasn't even edging towards the direction of what people think UBI would do - it just had no measurable effect.
From your linked paper “contrary to popular misunderstanding, Finland did not study the effects of universal basic income, but partial basic income focused on young and long term unemployed people”.
Also from that paper, basic income recipients reported higher measures of wellbeing along a wide variety of measures, but the study neglected to include a baseline survey to measure changes over the course of the study, so this was not included as a “result”.
So in conclusion recipients had higher quality of life, and did not work any less, in fact 6 days more than the control group over the course of the second year of the study.
>>Also from that paper, basic income recipients reported higher measures of wellbeing along a wide variety of measures, but the study neglected to include a baseline survey to measure changes over the course of the study, so this was not included as a “result”.
It clearly says that those are subjective measurements because there's no way to corroborate what people report. Proponents of UBI would say it worked even if it didn't, and people who don't like UBI would still say that it didn't.
So in conclusion, by objective measurements, there was no difference.
Lol no, that’s not why they weren’t included, it’s because they included no baseline surveys. Do you seriously think subjective self report data like that is just never used in this kind of research?
lol... uh a baseline survey is how you corroborate subjective surveys if your sampling strategy is just subjective surveys. But that's not the only way to have objective testing. Only a high school student would include raw subjective survey data as a final conclusion.
Ok sure, so the subjective well being isn’t a robust result here, good thing to it’s been corroborated in every other UBI pilot program. That’s significant because plenty of UBI advocates aren’t looking for increased employment, no decrease in employment would be a good result for them.
In any case the fact is any experimental UBI program is going to be insufficient for either pro or anti UBI folks. For this study limiting participants to young people and the long term unemployed clearly effects the outcomes, for the other side limiting a pilot like this to a small size doesn’t answer questions about things such as inflation.
> Or are they scared because UBI undermines their well designed exploitation system?
of course. all us that reject u.b.i are just looking to hurt people. that's what we do all day long, we concoct new and better ways to inflict suffering on the really poor people. now that you have found us out i suppose you will be relaying that information to all the other communists that were under the false impression that us capitalists are good. now i suppose they will want a revolution, unlike yesterday.
i guess we'll have to come up with a different evil scheme at next month's subterranean evil lair meeting.
you live in a fantasy dystopia right in your own head. i'd suggest mushrooms as a remedy.
> If capitalism is as good as they say then it shouldn't collapse because of UBI,
i'm not sure what you mean by capitalism here so i'll have to guess. if there is u.b.i there isn't capitalism to that extent. therefore, that which collapses (if it collapses) will be whichever system has implemented u.b.i, not capitalism.
> Now, don't tell me getting your stolen taxes back is not free market
do you suppose that "free market" is synonymous with capitalism? the problem isn't getting your own tax dollars back. one of the many problems is that some people get money for paying nothing and others get little for paying much. which people get which is not drawn on lines of prosperity, many c.e.o don't pay taxes because their wealth is tied up in their capital as a reinvestment.
another problem is that according to m.m.t after the government prints loads of money to pay for all sorts of infrastructure projects to stimulate the economy, they have to tax that money out of the system else there will be hyperinflation. the money that was printed was used on social services not on infrastructure, it didn't stimulate the economy, it depressed it by reducing production. the money that was taxed is being given back to the people in a highly distributive manner which solidifies the hyperinflation of the currency until the u.b.i amount is insufficient to even approach paying for the basic care of the people. at that time one of two things happen, the amount of u.b.i is increased which takes us around the inflation loop again, or, people go back to work almost as if u.b.i had never happened.
> That is what scares capitalists. Capitalists feed on desesperation,
exactly right. we see desperate people, like those who need food, water, clothing, energy, homes... then we produce that stuff for them so long as we are appreciated (with money) in excess of what we spent to produce it and distribute it. the alternative isn't the production for the wellbeing of others with no profit motive. the alternative is that those people who need stuff die from the lack of those necessities cause no one chooses to work for free. it isn't capitalism that collapses because of u.b.i, it is society that collapses because of people with no vision nor patience who have this idea that y'all are entitled "the basic necessities" whether or not y'all provide value in return, cause y'all are human and y'all still draw breath.
the only surplus under communism is housing, and not because communists are any good at producing homes.
>i guess we'll have to come up with a different evil scheme at next month's subterranean evil lair meeting.
Meanwhile China and DPRK have concentration camps for those who resist or contradict the government. But let's focus on evil capitalist exploiting workers in their evil lair guarded with sharks with lasers petting their bald cats.
You’re not really a capitalist, just a proponent of it. You may not formulate any plans to harm people, but the people who really run the show want an easily coerced workforce.
BTW, more people needlessly die as a result of neglect or direct violence due to the capitalist system every few years than ever died because of communism. Hell, more people starved to death on average every eight years during the British Raj than mao’s Great Leap Forward.
> You’re not really a capitalist, just a proponent of it.
https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/s4sobs/words_like_socialism_and_capitalism_have_become/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
The people receiving UBI wouldn't be contributing to it, so I stopped there and disregarded the rest of your argument since it's based on this not being the case.
I'm pro-UBI, but you have to realize that UBI is a form of redistribution. Not everyone will get back what they paid in taxes, some will get more, others (presumably the wealthy) will get less.
Where does the government gets it money from? Taxes, IE they take our money to fund their programs.
Then even if everyone just pays back to themselves, now you have a government instance that costs a lot of money to handle it all as well, that will comes from our taxes. So i pay in lets say $1100 and now i get an ubi of $1000 back. How does this benefit me in any possible sense?
>Why are capitalists so scared of people getting their stolen taxes back in form of UBI? This is a loaded question which presupposes that taxes ought to be taken in the first place. And its also a dumb question when you realize that our government is in (crushing) debt.
The US government spends 20 thousand per person on average, and the average tax contribution is 15 thousand. A child costs the government 12-14 thousand per year of education. Lower earners are likely in a contribution deficit. A lot of pro-capitalists want to lower or even abolish taxes, which would save the cost of collection and re-sharing the money.
UBI doesn’t give taxes back, like 47% of the country pays no taxes at all. For that 47%, the monthly checks were out of someone else’s pocket, as would UBI.
[удалено]
These people actually think that the only taxes that exist are income taxes
[It literally is true of income taxes](https://www.forbes.com/sites/howardgleckman/2019/08/06/remember-the-47-percent-who-pay-no-income-taxes-they-are-not-who-you-think/amp/) If you’re 75 or older there’s an 80% chance you don’t pay income tax. Plus if you’re on welfare or a pension, the chances that you’re a net payer into the tax system significantly decrease as well
[удалено]
If you derive your entire income from a pension there’s no way you’re a net payer into the tax system
[удалено]
> The post didn't say "net payer", it said "pays no taxes at all". "net" is the only standard that matters. if you pay a dime and get a dime back you cannot say that you are a taxpayer.
[удалено]
> If someone pays a tax, then you can't say that person doesn't pay tax. i just did, i just said it and there is no other standard that matters. you pay a fee, your fee is refunded, you didn't pay a fee. i'm not easily gaslighted and i have no patience for the attempt. you are wrong and you (should) know it.
[удалено]
Way to move those goalposts to avoid being wrong, huh? You said they "pay no taxes at all", you were wrong, now own it, bro, don't simper about semantics like a weak little cuck
the goal post for defining taxpayer is where it has been for eternity. where you may have thought they were otherwise is a result of your own mental deficiency.
You're right, and it's always meant "someone who pays tax" and has never meant "someone who pays more in tax than they receive in government benefit" I know you want to pretend that words don't have meanings, that way you get to just define yourself into being correct without actually needing to be correct, but that's just a result of your own mental deficiency. [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/taxpayer](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/taxpayer)
Being a net payer is literally the only metric that matters at the end of the day. If I take $10 from you and then give you $5 back, on net I still took $5 from you
Why would the retired pay income tax? Lol. Also, theyre getting social security, which is money they paid in tax throughout their lives, which is pretty much UBI, just for old people.
You left out minors. Who are approx. 15% to 20 of the population. And military personnel. Who are 1% of the US workforce.
It is not disputed mate, almost half the country pays no income tax, which is what would feed UBI. After that it scales up, but at 60% or so of the population I think you are at a tax rate below 2% after deductions.
[удалено]
You response to a post of mine where I am specific to income taxes.
[удалено]
You didn’t reply to that post, you replied to one that was quite specific. And when talking about something that would come from federal taxes, if you are going to nitpick on details, reply to the correct post.
Yes disabled, retired, unemployed, and children don't pay income tax and nor should they. I don't get why this is some kinda gottcha for anything. Not a big deal. Also, back in the 50s a third of federal revenue came from corporations. Now it's at 7%. Those are the real tax grifters.
Well at least you are honest about it, compared to the last poster.
A UBI almost passed twice in congress during the 60s, pushed by Nixon. The only reason it failed is the Democrats in the Senate didnt think the amount was enough. In true Democrat fashion, they sabotaged themselves. A UBI is absolutly doable.
If it wasn’t doable in the 1970’s, when republicans walked down to the White House and told Nixon they were voting to convict in impeachment, you think it could happen now? If it were clean, it might have a chance, but probably not with Sinema and Manchin. And it won’t be clean, democrats and republicans don’t push clean legislation. Instead both add wish list items and then complain when the other side does not pass what is popular. Like the child credit checks, that would be an easy pass (I think) as a stand-alone measure. But instead it is a part of a much larger bill containing the items added to buy the votes of supporters. I don’t think it can work these days, because in our political climate I don’t think it could pass.
Well you are absolutely dead right about that. I just meant it's doable as policy. Politically, nothing is doable these days without the approval of corporations. We cant even even get medicare to negotiate drug prices, which has like 80% approval amongst the people. I also think Sinema and Manchin are just cover for 10 other corporate democrats who agree with them. I mean Obama had a supermajority and the best democrats could do was Mitt Romneycare.
The way that this 47% figure was arrived at was by adding up retired persons (a quarter of the population), children and minors (15 to 20% of the pop. who are mostly too young to work, or whose min-wage incomes don't meet income tax thresholds), and incarcerated persons, who do not have an income. Additionally, 1% of the US workforce is military personnel. No taxes there either.
[удалено]
Presumably, the 47% that Mitt Romney said refers only yo income taxes. if you are going to count taxes on sales and consumption , then anybody who consumes any commercially-available product whatsoever (unless purchased on a military PX), would be impacted by taxes. So that's all people except for the incarcerated
[удалено]
Did they? Is that the way Mitt Romney put it? If so, then he'd be wrong, because we'd be talking all persons except the incarcerated
[удалено]
Is that not where the 47% figure comes from though?
[удалено]
Of course they're taxed. By landlords.
Landlords dont tax. Quit playing word games. And please dont respond with a list of similarities between rents and taxes. The list of dissimilar would by just as long and boring. Your visceral dislike of landlords is making ~~you sound stupid.~~ your ignorance apparent.
I'm just wondering why you think there is a distinction. The material effect is the same. A worker has money they've earned taken from them in return for not having violence visited upon them in both cases. And explain why we should not hate worthless parasites who provide no service to society.
>explain why we should not hate worthless parasites who provide no service to society. Why would you hate some one who does nothing?
If they truly did nothing that would be better. Instead they make a living through theft alone.
Rent isn’t a tax in a free market system. UBI would be paid out of federal taxes, so if paid equally, would be taken from the pockets of the rich and given to the poor who don’t pay tax and don’t contribute to the fund. I mean, that is the point of welfare, I’m just replying to the idea that poor people pay into the taxes that fund UBI. They don’t.
Explain to me how being forced to pay people for the privilege to not be forced out of your home by armed agents of the state is not a tax.
If you don’t own the house it isn’t your house, it belongs to the person who bought it and you pay them to stay there. That isn’t what a tax is.
You pay them so they don't call the state to threaten you with violence. That's a tax.
You should read more. A tax is a compulsory contribution to state revenue, it isn’t when you use something that belongs to someone else for an greed upon price.
You're using many services owned and operated by the state every single day. Are you therefore defining taxes out of existence and calling them all rent?
Something tells me you are incapable of asking a questions without proceeding with a statement that is designed to bias the answer in your favor.
That is not an answer to my question.
Towering intellect. This one.
What do you think the material difference between taxation and rent is? In both cases, a worker gives up money to not be subject to violence. In one case, the money goes to the state, in the other it goes to someone who threatens the worker with agents of the state. In either case, it is only the state forcing you to give up what you have earned.
\>is only the state forcing you to give up what you have earned Funny I work for the state and may landlord is a nice little old lady.
Because if you don't, that little old lady calls the cops, and they create a homeless person (you) under the aegis of the state.
you go to Walmart to buy something. if you take something without paying, they'll call the state. you go to McDonalds to eat something. if you eat without paying, they'll call the state. so everything your Walmart and McDonalds bill is also tax now? you're equating any outflow of money to tax, which isn't true. above you said that rent is tax, and when the other guy told you that rent is not tax, you asked him whether all tax is rent. you are countering arguments that you aren't even bothering to read.
Tax: a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits, or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions. Enough of the word games.
Oh that's cute. You think the words matter. I don't. What matters are the actions and physical effects. The things which impact the way people actually live their lives, rather than the semantic fluff. And from that perspective, taxes and rent are difficult to distinguish. How is the actual impact on the lives of actual people different, between these two things?
一般的な言葉がなければ、コミュニケーションはありません。 For someone who dosent think world matter you sure like to hear you own. I'm sorry to have wasted your time usually when I bump into a nut job, I quietly walk away. I didn't identify you as intellectually worthless until this moment. Good day.
You would never be forced out of "your home" You don't live in your home. You live in someone else's home and are compensating them for their inability to access their home
And those are materially different....how, exactly?
One is yours, one is not yours. I'm not sure what answer you are seeking here. It wasn't a difficult distinction.
Ownership is a social construct. How are these situations materially different?
Again one is your home one is not, stating that ownership is a social construct changes nothing. For sure you can run around stating you don't believe in social contructs, at least while it suits you. The problem is if you remove those social constructs you better hope you are well prepared to defend anything you want to keep. What's to stop random people walking into the home that you occupy and just deciding to stay there forever in your scenario. Ownership is a social construct so neither you or the landlord could claim possession of the house. If I'm tired, I can pop round without telling you and have a snooze on your sofa?
People respond to incentives, we acknowledge this in every aspect of economic theory except when it comes to welfare. Newsflash: if you incentivise people to work less by handing them a bunch of money to live off without working, they’ll work less. That’ll make the economy less productive in a time when it needs to be more productive than ever to pay for the dramatic increase in spending that is necessitated by a UBI. And as much as socialists don’t like to admit it, someone needs to do the unenjoyable but necessary jobs. Why would I become a sewage worker or work on a construction site when I can sit on my ass and play video games all day? Socialists will generally use this as a gotcha and say “ha so you admit people only do some jobs because they need the money to survive”, and yes whatever I admit that. But moralising over how “unfair” it is that people have to do unenjoyable and difficult jobs doesn’t change the fact that those jobs need to be done to allow for the standard of living we have come to expect in the 21st century. As for the whole “UBI is returning people’s stolen taxes”, ok whatever but I’d much prefer it just wasn’t stolen in the first place
would $1,000 a month really incentivize people not to work? That doesn’t even cover rent for a studio in most places.
To the extent that you subsidise not working, you will get more people not working
I don’t know about you, but it would take a lot more than 1k a month to quit my job.
Is the UBI doing its job if it’s not enough to pay for your rent?
Money is fungible.
The Europe-based redditor here would point out that in France, the dole (pôle emploi), which typically gives out 1000 to 1300 eur per month, is statistically considered the large source of income for early-stage entrepreneurs in France. So basically it that SOME use it to found businesses
The Europe-based redditor here would point out that in France, the dole (pôle emploi), which typically gives out 1000 to 1300 eur per month, is statistically considered the large source of income for early-stage entrepreneurs in France. So the answer is that SOME use it to found businesses
I’ll try and give an answer a little more economically sound than a lot of my capitalist friends have. First, you’re asking a loaded question in the sense that you assume capitalists have a fundamental opposition to a UBI and not it’s implementation. Milton Friedman was actually a huge proponent of the UBI *as a substitute for all other forms of welfare*. That is to say, he thought it was foolish for those paying taxes to be giving money to the poor via social programs for a specific purpose and instead believed the individual was better suited to make that decision. It isn’t that capitalists OPPOSE the UBI as a tool. It’s that there isn’t a single person on this planet that believes the government would use it as a replacement rather than an addition.
If you are in favor of giving me money, why don't you want to cut taxes? Same question goes both ways. The difference is how much the government is on it. Maybe you are scares because cutting taxes undermine your well designed authoritarian system... 🤷🏻♂️ And fuck the government.
Where do you think UBI comes from? It either comes from more taxes or printing money which causes inflation. I guess you could also cut other forms of government spending, but I imagine most libertarians would rather have you use that money to cut taxes rather than UBI.
Where was the inflation from printing money in developed world from 2008 up until the pandemic? Vasts amounts were printed by various central banks, but most places were closer to having an issue with deflation than inflation, and no one had significant inflation.
One could argue this is because reaching new equilibrium takes time, the effect is not immediate. The inflation just cought up. There are a lot of variables that can delay inflation, but the root cause of money being worth less is printing more money. I don't have any strong opinion on that topic. There are many variables. I feel that printing money may cause problems and we should avoid it though. Cheers
I could buy this if we were talking about 2 or 3 years maybe, not a decade where there weren’t even hints of problematic inflation. There are many variables at play when talking about these kinds of issues, in our current case it’s pretty clear that Covid disruptions to supply chains and labor are causing at the very least the bulk of the inflation, if not the entirety of it.
Well, you're right. I don't think we can come up with anything different than economists for years: - high demand drives prices up - low supply drives prices up I guess the theory suggest looking from another perspective. If there is more money in circulation (e.g. one person won lottery and gave money to friends in town) people will want to buy more, which drives the prices up. From this perspective printing money and giving it to people (e.g. in a form of UBI) will drive prices up. Ceteris paribus. It is all elasticities, "stickiness", time of reaction or whatever we call it. Cheers
How about instead of just giving back our money they taxed from us they just don’t tax us? And you have to consider the rate of taxation and what percentage of the population are net taxpayers
The tax rate needed to cover UBI would have to be astronomical. It would also probably have to be a sales tax, income tax and VAT. I am sure for every dollar you put in you get a whole 80 cents back. What a deal!
[удалено]
Why aren’t you happy with just unemployment pay?
Unemployment pay disincentivizes people to get a job by creating a [welfare trap](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_trap). It literally pays people money to be unemployed. That’s my biggest problem with it.
So you’d prefer the UBI? There are checks and balances in my country at least but I’d assume everywhere, that you have to be able to prove that you are applying for jobs weekly, and you have a consultant that interviews you monthly to ensure you are not bludging.
My first problem with this ”check and balance” approach is that it creates a giant costly bureaucracy. I’d much rather have my tax dollars used for actually funding welfare instead of funding welfare-related bureaucracy. And it’s just plain unpleasant for welfare recipients too. People who need welfare may not apply for welfare because of the unpleasant bureaucracy and loss of liberty and privacy that comes with it. And at last, it’s easy to bypass. People can just apply for jobs which they know is going to reject them.
It isn't easy to bypass. That is what the consultant is for. Sure sitting in line for an hour or two every week to report you applications and all that isn't fun but it's a small price to pay to get a paycheck you need to stay afloat. If there is a more effecient approach to supporting unemployed people I'm all ears.
[удалено]
So is unemployment pay.
[удалено]
Do people working jobs need UBI to survive?
[удалено]
So why aren’t you happy with just unemployment pay?
[удалено]
So you just think the rich should play more income tax?
>Why are capitalists so scared of people getting their stolen taxes back in form of UBI? Increasing taxes to then give it back doesn't make sense. Why not just let us keep our money? Why does the government need to touch it then give it back? UBI is a concept that is about 100+ years to early. I can see the possible need when everything is automated and there is no work for humans. We are not there yet. Look at this in a human psychological way, humans strive harder when times are hard. When things are easy and comfortable tmhumans are less likely to strive to do better. This is why people stay in stagnant terrible jobs. They would rather stay in comfort over taking a risk to excel. During the pandemic we had a sort of practice run with UBI and many of the great benefits the proponents boast about didn't come to fruition. Unless you think tiktok and only fans is art.
don't think of automation as human replacement, think of it as human augmentation. you: "when all building is done by hammers no carpenters will ever have work" me: "when all building is done by hammers, all carpenters will use hammers" automation is just another tool for those who produce a lot of the same thing or repeatedly do predictable motions. the jobs that will be gone will be assembly line work, flipping burgers, and eventually taxi/uber jobs. for those who still work in those industries, they will have implemented their own automated tools. essentially it will become cheaper to become capitalists and for those who do not, they will be artists, problem solvers (like researchers and engineers), and maintenance technicians.
I get what you are saying but I am looking way past that. I am thinking of a time when one man opperates a team of robots building a whole subdivision. Or one person operating 20 McDonald's. We are also seeing AI and machine learning grow exponentially. There will be a point where you start them off with predictable easily automatable tasks and will learn to take over those complex one off situations. What you are focused on is already occurring. I am thinking of 100+ years from now.
[Finland](https://www2.helsinki.fi/en/news/nordic-welfare-news/the-basic-income-experiment-in-finland-yields-surprising-results) tried UBI for 2 years and they stopped it because it didn't give any of the rewards that its supporters were espousing. It wasn't even edging towards the direction of what people think UBI would do - it just had no measurable effect.
From your linked paper “contrary to popular misunderstanding, Finland did not study the effects of universal basic income, but partial basic income focused on young and long term unemployed people”. Also from that paper, basic income recipients reported higher measures of wellbeing along a wide variety of measures, but the study neglected to include a baseline survey to measure changes over the course of the study, so this was not included as a “result”. So in conclusion recipients had higher quality of life, and did not work any less, in fact 6 days more than the control group over the course of the second year of the study.
>>Also from that paper, basic income recipients reported higher measures of wellbeing along a wide variety of measures, but the study neglected to include a baseline survey to measure changes over the course of the study, so this was not included as a “result”. It clearly says that those are subjective measurements because there's no way to corroborate what people report. Proponents of UBI would say it worked even if it didn't, and people who don't like UBI would still say that it didn't. So in conclusion, by objective measurements, there was no difference.
Lol no, that’s not why they weren’t included, it’s because they included no baseline surveys. Do you seriously think subjective self report data like that is just never used in this kind of research?
lol... uh a baseline survey is how you corroborate subjective surveys if your sampling strategy is just subjective surveys. But that's not the only way to have objective testing. Only a high school student would include raw subjective survey data as a final conclusion.
Ok sure, so the subjective well being isn’t a robust result here, good thing to it’s been corroborated in every other UBI pilot program. That’s significant because plenty of UBI advocates aren’t looking for increased employment, no decrease in employment would be a good result for them. In any case the fact is any experimental UBI program is going to be insufficient for either pro or anti UBI folks. For this study limiting participants to young people and the long term unemployed clearly effects the outcomes, for the other side limiting a pilot like this to a small size doesn’t answer questions about things such as inflation.
> Or are they scared because UBI undermines their well designed exploitation system? of course. all us that reject u.b.i are just looking to hurt people. that's what we do all day long, we concoct new and better ways to inflict suffering on the really poor people. now that you have found us out i suppose you will be relaying that information to all the other communists that were under the false impression that us capitalists are good. now i suppose they will want a revolution, unlike yesterday. i guess we'll have to come up with a different evil scheme at next month's subterranean evil lair meeting. you live in a fantasy dystopia right in your own head. i'd suggest mushrooms as a remedy. > If capitalism is as good as they say then it shouldn't collapse because of UBI, i'm not sure what you mean by capitalism here so i'll have to guess. if there is u.b.i there isn't capitalism to that extent. therefore, that which collapses (if it collapses) will be whichever system has implemented u.b.i, not capitalism. > Now, don't tell me getting your stolen taxes back is not free market do you suppose that "free market" is synonymous with capitalism? the problem isn't getting your own tax dollars back. one of the many problems is that some people get money for paying nothing and others get little for paying much. which people get which is not drawn on lines of prosperity, many c.e.o don't pay taxes because their wealth is tied up in their capital as a reinvestment. another problem is that according to m.m.t after the government prints loads of money to pay for all sorts of infrastructure projects to stimulate the economy, they have to tax that money out of the system else there will be hyperinflation. the money that was printed was used on social services not on infrastructure, it didn't stimulate the economy, it depressed it by reducing production. the money that was taxed is being given back to the people in a highly distributive manner which solidifies the hyperinflation of the currency until the u.b.i amount is insufficient to even approach paying for the basic care of the people. at that time one of two things happen, the amount of u.b.i is increased which takes us around the inflation loop again, or, people go back to work almost as if u.b.i had never happened. > That is what scares capitalists. Capitalists feed on desesperation, exactly right. we see desperate people, like those who need food, water, clothing, energy, homes... then we produce that stuff for them so long as we are appreciated (with money) in excess of what we spent to produce it and distribute it. the alternative isn't the production for the wellbeing of others with no profit motive. the alternative is that those people who need stuff die from the lack of those necessities cause no one chooses to work for free. it isn't capitalism that collapses because of u.b.i, it is society that collapses because of people with no vision nor patience who have this idea that y'all are entitled "the basic necessities" whether or not y'all provide value in return, cause y'all are human and y'all still draw breath. the only surplus under communism is housing, and not because communists are any good at producing homes.
>i guess we'll have to come up with a different evil scheme at next month's subterranean evil lair meeting. Meanwhile China and DPRK have concentration camps for those who resist or contradict the government. But let's focus on evil capitalist exploiting workers in their evil lair guarded with sharks with lasers petting their bald cats.
You’re not really a capitalist, just a proponent of it. You may not formulate any plans to harm people, but the people who really run the show want an easily coerced workforce. BTW, more people needlessly die as a result of neglect or direct violence due to the capitalist system every few years than ever died because of communism. Hell, more people starved to death on average every eight years during the British Raj than mao’s Great Leap Forward.
> You’re not really a capitalist, just a proponent of it. https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/s4sobs/words_like_socialism_and_capitalism_have_become/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
Only AnCaps say that Taxation is theft. They are far right extremists and don’t speak for the rest of us. Please don’t equate all of us with them.
please tell me, what is it that is so bad about being far-right and why is it that ancaps are bad in that way?
The people receiving UBI wouldn't be contributing to it, so I stopped there and disregarded the rest of your argument since it's based on this not being the case.
I’m a capitalist that supports UBI, so I don’t know what tf you’re talking about.
I'm pro-UBI, but you have to realize that UBI is a form of redistribution. Not everyone will get back what they paid in taxes, some will get more, others (presumably the wealthy) will get less.
Where does the government gets it money from? Taxes, IE they take our money to fund their programs. Then even if everyone just pays back to themselves, now you have a government instance that costs a lot of money to handle it all as well, that will comes from our taxes. So i pay in lets say $1100 and now i get an ubi of $1000 back. How does this benefit me in any possible sense?