> Send us a fat portion of your workers' pay to fund our Utopian vision. Or else.

The freedom that UBI provides includes your freedom to refuse the oppressive burden of becoming rich and having to pay taxes in the process.

The more people who do object to the burdens of wealth, the easier it will be for the non-retarded to become rich in their place.

Paying income taxes is completely voluntary. Don't earn any/much income and you pay 0.

"Object to the burdens of wealth."

I'd rather have the burdens of the wealthy than the poor. Losing money or whatever seems less of a burden than starving or freezing to death.

>Losing money or whatever seems less of a burden than starving or freezing to death.

huh its almost as if thats the entire point of UBI

The parent comment suggested the burdens of wealth are somehow bad and we should all aspire to be BI paupers. At least, that's what it sounded like.

But paying your taxes isn't presented as an option.

Exactly.

You are replacing a decision with (according to the quote) limited flexibility, with a choice with no flexibility.

You try tell that to the individuals who claim we live in a "voluntary" society. One "voluntarily" pays his/her taxes. Really, once you start peeling past it, it's a never ending stream of contradictions and state double-speak.

It doesn't have to come from income tax. It could come from unearned sources of income, such as a tax on land, or on interest.

Or it could fall from the sky, or grow on trees...

I agree with one point: UBI will provide freedom -- the freedom of some fraction of society to live at a very low standard at the expense of the remainder.

Sure, a high-income family, burdened by UBI taxes and other monstrosities, could decide to leave their jobs, leave their home, schools, neighborhood, and live in a UBI ghetto. To pursue art...

I will meet your challenge head-on and say that that UBI is a worthwhile task, even presented worse than in your imagination. Humans have the right to dignity, food and shelter, and I think even those who are lazy, angry, worthless, deserve these as much as do any other.

But your argument relies on other inherently problematic parts of the American system.

-You say that people would have to "live in a UBI ghetto". Sure, they won't be able to afford a six bedroom house or a downtown Manhattan apartment off UBI. But in cities with public transit, and with non-ridiculous building restrictions, why can't the answer be "downsize and move ten minutes away"?

-You tie high-performing schools to high-income neighbourhoods. This is true in the US, but for bad reasons. Public schools should, and already in many parts of the world do, accept people who want to come from any nearby geographic location. A particularly effective example is the city of Edmonton, in Canada. Kids can choose to go to any high school in the entire metropolitan region (of course with capacity preference for nearby students, which is rarely reached). And it works extremely well.

-You assume through the pejorative "ghetto" that life in a neighbourhood with many UBI recipients will be undesirable. But why is this true? Just because people are less monied does not mean they are worse. In countries which do not allow their poor citizens access to mental health support, sufficient food and education, etc., outcomes are worse. But a high enough UBI would allow these citizens to fix those problems themselves.

>But in cities with public transit, and with non-ridiculous building restrictions, why can't the answer be "downsize and move ten minutes away"?

if you are living off UBI, it literally doesnt matter where you live. Move to rural midwest - theres plenty of vacant housing at astonishingly cheap prices.

You could easily get a multi-bedroom house for under 500 a month

Or by reducing the financial excess/waste that goes to corruption, tax avoidance or rent-seeking companies (many of who oppose the very idea of a basic income).

... and now we jumped straight to utopia. imagining that ending corruption just like that to support this thingie... I wish to take BI seriously, but then the whole topic needs to be serious, and not start with these childish statements and assumptions.

All the simulations/proposition in Switzerland are heavily relying on increased taxation of work force. All spending saved on cutting of existing social systems is far from being enough to finance it.

Almost nobody is strictly against ideas of BI. What all opponents have against is the high potential for catastrophic failure once it hits reality. Like all other utopistic ideas that started with good intentions. or anybody considers communism a success?

I didn't say that ending corruption would "support this thingie", I identified corruption and associated crimes as an appropriate source of funding for a BI initiative, namely because there are economic studies that estimate losses to shadow economy practices to be as as high as 13% [1] to 26% [2] of a some countries' GDP.

[1] the figure by Portugal's official statistic (same article as below) [2] the figure calculated by an independent think-thank focused on shadow economy studies (https://www.publico.pt/economia/noticia/-economia-paralela-c...)

PS: these numbers are focused on Portugal for brevity, but you'll easily find similar studies if you look up Transparency International.

> "Like all other utopistic ideas that started with good intentions. or anybody considers communism a success?"

I've said this before but it bears repeating, communism has never been fully realised because it got stuck at the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' stage:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletaria...

"In Marxist sociopolitical thought, the dictatorship of the proletariat refers to a state in which the proletariat, or the working class, has control of political power.[1][2] The term, coined by Joseph Weydemeyer, was adopted by the founders of Marxism, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, in the 19th century. In Marxist theory, the dictatorship of the proletariat is the intermediate system between capitalism and communism, when the government is in the process of changing the ownership of the means of production from private to collective ownership."

"Marxism–Leninism follows the ideas of Marxism and Leninism, seeking to establish a vanguard party, to lead proletarian uprising, assume state power on behalf of the proletariat, and create a single party socialist state. The socialist state, representing a dictatorship of the proletariat is governed through the process of democratic centralism, which Vladimir Lenin described as "diversity in discussion, unity in action." It remains the official ideology of the ruling parties of China, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam, and was the official ideology of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) and the other ruling parties making up the Eastern Bloc."

IMO this intermediate step was the biggest mistake of those who attempted communism, the transition from this centrally-controlled state to a decentralised egalitarian is highly unlikely to work.

UBI on the other hand is not an attempt to build a utopia, and does not interfere with the freedom for people to choose where to work and what to spend their money on. It's just a better safety net to prepare for an increasingly uncertain future.

> It's just a better safety net to prepare for an increasingly uncertain future

Honest question: when has the future not been uncertain? When times were good? I'm guessing that the collective outlook about the future has a lot to do with current conditions, which is counterintuitive. If current conditions are worse, aren't they likely to get better? Likewise, if conditions are fantastic, don't they have a greater chance of getting worse? That is, of course, assuming that there is some equilibrium we hover around, which history has suggested.

> "Honest question: when has the future not been uncertain? When times were good? I'm guessing that the collective outlook about the future has a lot to do with current conditions, which is counterintuitive. If current conditions are worse, aren't they likely to get better? Likewise, if conditions are fantastic, don't they have a greater chance of getting worse? That is, of course, assuming that there is some equilibrium we hover around, which history has suggested."

We were never able to predict the future with great accuracy, however the rate of technological change and societal change is faster today than it's been for a long time. We've already gone through a period of rapid change in the 20th century, if you compare life in 1900 with 1999 you can see that our society changed radically. The pace of technological change and societal change is not slowing down, along with increasing activity in AI, VR and synthetic biology which all have the potential to alter our society drastically, we will also have to address considerable challenges with climate change and the knock on effects on the lifecycles of the earth, political instability, economic instability, superbugs, etc...

Those are just the challenges we know about today. What we'll be facing in 20 years we do not know. However, with the challenges we face today the outcomes are too hard to predict, and aside from WW1 and WW2 all are potentially greater than the challenges we faced in the 20th century.

I think you need to review your history. After WW2 people were literally so worried about nuclear annihilation of the planet they ran weekly air raid drills in schools. Then it was the economic recession and malaise of the 70s. Then it was the rise of the powerful Japanese economy and the threat of globalization. Before WW2, well.. shit was way, way worse for most people in the world, and it just got worse the farther back you go. I really don't think increasing activity in AI and VR are going to threaten our security or way of lives in as significant a way as fascism or nuclear weapons did.

The threat of nuclear weapons is still strong. Look at North Korea, just this week we had another missile test. Thankfully it wasn't a nuclear missile, and the launch failed, but the intention to improve their missile capabilities is clear, and they've conducted 4 nuclear weapon tests in the last 10 years.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0YN5UU

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17823706

Considering the irrational leadership (and also considering the usefulness of North Korea to China if they ever wanted to conduct a proxy war), they pose a definite threat.

Another example is Pakistan. They're a country with clear links to Islamic fundamentalism, as well as one with nuclear weapons. The potential for something to go wrong in this situation shouldn't be underestimated, even if Pakistan doesn't launch the missiles themselves you could have a country like Saudi Arabia looking to get control over a nuclear weapon either by buying one or through underhanded means, and a desire to do so could be rationalised by the threat posed by Isreal and the US.

Lastly, we have the US. Despite rhetoric in line with nuclear disarmament, their continued military support of Isreal is pretty much the only thing blocking a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East, and Obama has started a program for a new nuclear weapons arsenal, one focused on a larger number of small weapons. The decrease in size but increase in quantity is concerning, as it implies the US way be aiming for weapons they can use strategically in war.

As for fascism, there's a very real possibility that Trump will be elected (he's currently slightly up in the polls vs Clinton, plus Clinton is under FBI investigation and could be indicted before the elections conclude). Trump is a known liar, but if he follows through with what he's claimed then he does lean towards fascism. We'll have to wait to see how things pan out after the election.

We also have other countries which oppress democratic change in their country. Whilst you couldn't call them fascist per se, I'd argue that this oppression represents one of the worst traits of what we know of fascist dictatorships.

I could go on. The point is just because those threats aren't as prominent in people's minds doesn't mean they've gone away.

> Marxism–Leninism follows the ideas of Marxism and Leninism

Well, that's the marketing PR of Leninism, which has been uncritically accepted by those who oppose both Marxism and Leninism without really understanding either. Leninist vanguardism, in reality, rejects a number of fundamental elements of Marxism in order to bypass essential preconditions -- such as the existence of a developed capitalist society to build on -- in order to develop a theory of how to pursue goals similar to those expressed in Marxism in places where the essential prerequisites Marx saw were not present.

I don't care whether it's Marxist, or Marxist-Leninist, or whatever you want to call their approach, the point is that both Marx and Lenin saw a dictatorship as a necessary intermediary step towards communism, and that's a fundamental mistake regardless of the window dressing that surrounds it.

and that, my friend, is exactly what I meant when nice ideals hit reality. it never ends as it was intended, and extremely rarely for the better

I agree that good intentions can have bad consequences, but in this particular case I'd say the bad consequences were easy to predict before the attempt was made. It's possible to remove ideas that are obviously bad to make problems less likely.

How taxes aren't coercion?

How is democracy not coercion? There are plenty of laws passed that I didn't want passed, yet I am forced to obey them.

Because if you don't like paying them, you don't have to. You can emigrate instead or, in the case of land taxes, sell your land.

That's like saying that the Mafia's protection racket isn't a form of coercion. You can choose to shut down your business, or move to a different city after all!

We need states to wield violence on our behalf, and the development of democratic republics has done much to curb some of the excesses of other forms of state (but democratic republics have their own uncurbed excesses). But we shouldn't fool ourselves about their fundamentally coërcive nature.

Steve Martin: how get a million dollars tax free. First, get a million dollars. Then when they haul you into court and ask why you didn't pay our taxes, say to the judge, "your honor, I forgot". What can they do to you?

I'm not after workers' pay.

I'm after your 'package' and your contractually guaranteed returns and your windfalls.

I'm going to reverse a 55 year trend of ever more wealth going to a limited number of people.

I'm going to crack off as much of that as I can and redefine how we play this game for the next round.

Defining this as 'taking money from your employees' is akin IMO to claiming you're replacing unskilled labor in your fast food chain with a robot because the minimum wage went up.

So, when someone with knowledge of the fast food industry directly states that robots will be implemented if the minimum wage goes up is somehow misinformed?

you have to be pretty naive to think robots wont be in fast food places either way.

Exactly. His prediction was a pretty low number, only like double current minimum wage. The fact that he made that prediction is very scary. Think of how many things we've seen improve 2x in less than a decade.