No I don't. Frankly, I suspect I understand tax and spending a fair bit better than you do, probably because we've spent the past 2 years talking about it in Scotland due to the independence referendum (and the following talks on full fiscal autonomy).
> How many people have any clue as to where tax revenues come from?
Just about every grown adult on the planet? Who do you think pays taxes?
> How many understand that other people have to earn that money first?
Well, that's just plain wrong. You're conflating money and wealth. They're different things. Money is just created to reflect wealth: it's literally just invented by your government (or, in the case of Bitcoin, just by proven work). And wealth doesn't have to be earned; it just has to be created.
> How many understand that if the people who earn money are burdened with much higher taxes to pay for someone else's BI, a lot of them them will just stop working because fuck that?
Sure, I'm going to stop contracting at $3000 a week because, hey!, I could just live on $30 a week instead.
> Please just think about it for a while.
Yes, please do. There are actually intelligent objections to BI.
Here are some proper concerns: What about illegal immigrants in the country? What about the federal government having all your details if you want to claim BI? Would it be better to be state run than federal (or in the EU, by countries, or would it be better run as an EU project?). Would it create problems with inflation? Would it cause problems with the banking system?
Now, this would raise rents in that area slightly, but would have a downward pressure on rents in the more expensive area. In short, it might have the effect of equalising rents.
It's difficult to be sure, of course, which is why I think it would be a good idea to start BI low enough that we can keep an eye on what's actually happening (say $30 a week), as there could well be multiple effects all at once if you started at, say, $150 a week.
My point was that people have to do something to acquire the money they have, and no one is going to give it to them "for free". All the money people have represents some sort of valuable activity, time used and effort spent.
So basically, money isn't free. It costs time and effort, and that's a central reason for why there's a limit to how much of it you can take from people.
(Let's not bicker about the financial industry at this point though - they're not actually providing value anyway)
But it makes no sense to say that "money is just created to reflect wealth". I get that wealth is all of the stuff we have available to us, in whatever pursuits it may be useful, and so on. But money is just a means of exchange. It's fundamentally a commodity that has become widely accepted in exchange for goods and services.
Now that's not how our fiat currencies work in today's world, but that's just because governments have abandoned sound money altogether. What I'm talking about - and what you should be too - is sound money. Something that just emerged as money through people engaging in voluntary trades.
Anyway, you're not in a position to complain about my understanding about economics (or taxes or whatever).
> Sure, I'm going to stop contracting at $3000 a week because, hey!, I could just live on $30 a week instead.
Is that supposed to be an argument against something I said? You'll have to explain how.
I should note that money didn't "just emerge". The reason money from the Roman Empire, for example, became so popular, even outside the empire, was because it was government backed. Outside the empire, people traded goods and would just use bits of gold or silver to trade, which suffered from massive fraud (mixing with base metals).
> Is that supposed to be an argument against something I said? You'll have to explain how.
Yes, it's an argument against the bit I quoted. That people would stop working because they saw others living on BI. I'm not going to stop working because I can do a lot better than BI, even working part time. Especially if it's started low, at $30 a week.
Gold and silver sure as hell did, and that's what I was referring to, which I'm pretty sure you saw anyway, especially considering you brought up gold too.
Actually, the concept of "debasing currency" comes from the government of the time diluting the gold content of the gold coins in use back then.
> That people would stop working because they saw others living on BI.
Alright, so your argument against the idea that people would stop working because they saw others living on BI, is to snarkily suggest that you personally wouldn't?
Surely you understand that other people very much would, even if you personally wouldn't? You'll have to try harder.
No, they didn't. I was referring to gold and silver being used as tradeable goods, not as currency. There's a difference.
Bertrand Russell wrote an essay on getting rid of the gold standard called "The Modern Midas". You'll find it in the collection "In Praise of Idleness". You might find it interesting. In fact, you might find the whole collection interesting, though I doubt you'd agree with any of them.
> Surely you understand that other people very much would, even if you personally wouldn't?
Oh, please. How many people would give up a job to live on $30 a week? You can live on welfare better than that. Would you give up your job for that? Do you know anyone who would?
Oh come on. You know they did emerge, as mediums of exchange, which is what money/currency fundamentally is. You're making a meaningless distinction to cover your ass.
> Oh, please. How many people would give up a job to live on $30 a week?
We're talking about a Basic Income, where the idea is to get enough money to live on, right? That most definitely would cause many people to just stop working because they wouldn't need to anymore, even if the BI happened to be too low for you to stop collecting your phat paychecks. You get that, yes?
No, I specifically mentioned starting it low and even gave an example amount of $30 per week. Several times. My first post was saying "call it a Citizen's Dividend instead". With the exact reason that it would be good to monitor the effect.
If you're going to refuse to actually think and read then you're not worth my time. Go away and learn something.
End of the day, we're making lots of technological advances that aren't advancing people in a meaningful way. We've already devastated the working class so much. Truck driving is a key "success" job for many people. Take that away without prospects for something new, and you're going to have an uprising.
People need an occupation. 50 years of the welfare state should have taught that lesson.
Two people trading with each other is not, because both perceive a benefit, because otherwise they wouldn't trade.
Opposition to UBI comes from people with a clue about economics. One more time: the money for UBI has. to. come. from. somewhere.
Money is not free, and therefore it can't be just handed out by the truckload without adverse effects elsewhere in the economy. Whoever gets free money is happy, but someone somewhere was burdened more than before and is unhappy.
First, let's talk about utility. Utility of capital is non-linear. So, if we take $100 out of a millionaire's pocket, and distribute it evenly to 10 people who each have $100. The millionaire's ability to contribute to society has decreased by 10 units. The ten other members of society each had their ability to contribute to society increase by 2 units. We've generated a net-gain for society by redistributing wealth.
Second, we can look at the dollar value of the system. Yes, I would argue that even the dollar value of this redistribution is not a zero sum game. Obviously the basic transfer of wealth was zero sum. But it made our enonomy slightly more efficient by improving the capacity of the 10 citizens. Let's say the economy grows $10 more than it would have without the redistribution. Suddenly, even in just dollar-value the redistribution was not zero-sum.
It's important to realize that UBI is a response to extreme income inequality, which can cause large ineffeciencies in a market. Automation obsoleting jobs only needs to lead to UBI if that automation leads to rising income inequality. If we find a way to work with technology that keeps income disparities at a reasonable and efficient value, then there's no need for UBI. However, income inequality has reached to pretty significant heights and continues to grow.
Are you taking into account the fact that 10 people now have a means to convey to entrepreneurs that some new product or service would solve a problem they have? Does doing this on a larger scale increase the ability of an entrepreneur to bootstrap a company through revenue rather than acquiring capital from now-poorer millionaire (whom we'll assume was an investor)?
Utility: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility
Non-Linearity: This suggests that the utility that someone derives from wealth is not linearly proportional to their wealth. A simple example may demonstrate this more clearly: We give both an extremely wealthy person and an extremely poor person $10. The poor person will get more utility out of that $10 than the rich person will.
For example, if you're really hankering for an apple and you eat one, that apple will be more satisfying than the second one, because the first apple satisfied your strongest craving.
The same can be applied to resources etc.
But more importantly, why would anyone else have the right to decide how your property is allocated or used, even if you do happen to be rich?
Besides, even if you redistribute people's property based on the idea that the end justifies the means, what if the poor people you're helping through harming others don't use the money wisely? What if someone gets $10 and uses it to maintain his alcoholism? -Did your grand vision of increased Societal Utility come true?
Even disregarding morality, which would be.. rather psychopathic, how can you know if people will use the money wisely? What about Rational Actors® and Efficiency®? :)
No, I was using marginal utility to demonstrate that the relationship between total wealth and the utility provided by that wealth is non-linear.
To complete the full thought: Marginal utility is the first derivative of utility. If marginal utility is constant, then overall utility is linear. If marginal utility trends downward then the overall utility is non-linear. Since we appear to agree that marginal utility tends to decrease, then calculus forces us to agree that the utility that someone derives from wealth has a non-linear relationship with that wealth.
> "what if the poor people you're helping through harming others don't use the money wisely"
I think it's a fair question, but it seems hypocritical to ask immediately after asking: "why would anyone else have the right to decide how their property is allocated or used".
However, every study I've seen done on this issue has shown that unconditional cash transfers to impoverished people tends to be used reasonably well[1]. Certainly there will be some people who choose not to use redistributed income well, just as there are some people who have lots of capital who choose not to use their income well.
> "why would anyone else have the right to decide how your property is allocated or used"
This one you'll have to take up with the Supreme Court, Congress, the United States Treasury, and the Internal Revenue Service who all take it as a given that the United States Government has the right to decide how your property is allocated or used.
Again, as mentioned in our other comment thread, since you seem to be advocating for zero taxes and zero government spending, I don't think we can come to any meaningful resolution on these issues in a text-format over the internet.
I think this is the critical point of our disagreements over UBI — you find all government spending to be theft and morally wrong. This isn't an argument against UBI, but an argument against the entire system of governance that the world has adopted. That's totally fine, but it's not an argument that I'm prepared to consider on this particular forum. If you want to continue this discussion, let's do so in person or over the phone sometime.
[1] One example of a study showing gains from unconditional cash transfers: http://www.princeton.edu/~joha/publications/Haushofer_Shapir...
> I think it's a fair question, but it seems hypocritical to ask immediately after asking: "why would anyone else have the right to decide how their property is allocated or used".
Why would it be hypocritical? I'm not advocating for someone else using your property, nor for helping some through harming others.
> However, every study I've seen done on this issue has shown that unconditional cash transfers to impoverished people tends to be used reasonably well[1]
Didn't we already conclude that evidence is really quite meaningless in this discussion? It's not difficult to find statistics and articles to support the idea of redistribution.
It is difficult, however, to explain why anyone's money should be "redistributed" away from him, considering it's his property. If a rich person's kid has a shitload of Lego bricks, should some of them be taken away from him to be redistributed to poor people's kids?
> Certainly there will be some people who choose not to use redistributed income well, just as there are some people who have lots of capital who choose not to use their income well.
What does it mean to use one's income well? Who decides if my use of my income is acceptable? Why would anyone be in a position to decide that for me?
If I want to buy my seventh Ford Fiesta because it will bring me immense joy, can you claim I'm not using my capital or income well?
> This one you'll have to take up with the Supreme Court, Congress, the United States Treasury, and the Internal Revenue Service who all take it as a given that the United States Government has the right to decide how your property is allocated or used.
Well no, I don't "have" to, and that would be roughly as worthwhile as writing to your representative, asking not to get shafted by SOPA/CISPA/PIPA/NDAA/PATRIOT ACT/etc.
Instead, I brought it up with you, as part of OUR discussion here, which you're perfectly capable of continuing by answering my question.
Here's a related video though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE
I would be happy to continue the debate in a different venue — a thread with the ethics of taxation as it's core concept, a different website, an e-mail thread, a phone call, or an in-person meeting. Let's take this to a more appropriate place, and I'll happily continue the discussion as long as it remains productive.
Add '@gmail.com' to the end of my username, and we can go from there.
Any ideas, then?
But there isn't. The money has always had to come from somewhere, and it's always had consequences. It's just that the consequences can't be swept under the rug anymore, and soon even the most fervent propaganda will fail to convince the masses that everything is alright and the economy is recovering (when in reality it's not, and it's not).
Since reasoning alone doesn't lead to an obvious answer on this topic, then I would argue that yes, you do need evidence to back up your claims.
> "do you think there's no limit to how much of other people's money governments can spend?"
It's obvious that there exists such a limit. However, the existence of that limit doesn't do anything to help us determine what amount of government spending is the most efficient.
The claim that:
1) There is a maximum amount of government spending possible
2) Therefore, the current government spending is too high
Has the same flaws as:
1) There is a maximum velocity that we can travel (c)
2) Therefore, the current highway speed limit is too high.
[1] For example, there were a large number of respected economists that weighed in on both sides of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
You want to know what amount of government spending is the most "efficient", but you should first define what you mean with efficiency in that context.
In ordinary life, efficiency involves maximizing output from input, right? A car can be more fuel-efficient than the previous year's model, and so on.
So you want government spending to be "efficient", but all government spending represents a wasteful middle-man between people and their money and whatever goods and services they need. Therefore, all government spending is "inefficient" from the point of view of the people whose money governments spend.
So I'd say that there's no such thing as efficient government spending. What's efficient is people paying for stuff on a free market with free and unhindered competition among providers. Surely you know how competition works, and results in lower prices and higher quality, right? In other words, free competition results in maximal "efficiency" in an economy.
In conclusion, if you want maximal efficiency in the way money is spent, you can't support the idea of any government spending.
The main difference being that evidence changes between 2009 and 2015. Maybe there is new evidence since then to really support your claim that I'm not aware of? Evidence is constantly changing. Raw reasoning and logic is not constantly changing. If the only basis we're working from is rational thought, then you should be able to reach the same conclusions that Aristotle did.
Hence, the request for evidence.
> 'You want to know what amount of government spending is the most "efficient", but you should first define what you mean with efficiency in that context.'
I'm using efficiency specifically in the economic context (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_efficiency, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productive_efficiency).
I'm sorry for assuming an economic context for my terms — elsewhere in the thread you asserted that "Opposition to UBI comes from people with a clue about economics" so I made the assumption that you were familiar with economic terms. Additionally, I'll be the first to admin that my economics background is merely some early econ classes in college and a general interest afterward. I'd be very interested to hear from any economics if I've badly mucked up any of these concepts.
> "In conclusion, if you want maximal efficiency in the way money is spent, you can't support the idea of any government spending."
I don't think there are many serious economists that you back you up on this assertion. This claims that I would be happier if there were no roads, no water supply, no education systems, no protection from criminals (which technically don't exist because there's no criminal behavior), and no protection from other countries. I absolutely would like some of my money taken and spent on those thing.
I'm happy to debate if the amount of government spending is currently too high or too low; I'm happy to discuss where the best place for it to be is. However, if you would seriously contend that the correct number is zero I think we may be too far apart on a base ideological level to continue this conversation in a productive way. At the very least arguing economics won't get us to any common ground — I think we'd have to switch over to philosophy before we'd find common ground.
That's exactly why it's a better foundation for economic conclusions.
Why would you keep requesting evidence even after acknowledging that there's evidence every which way? Anyone can just cherry-pick evidence that suits them, but where does that leave us?
Reasoning based on correct premises works pretty well though.
> I'm sorry for assuming an economic context for my terms — elsewhere in the thread you asserted that "Opposition to UBI comes from people with a clue about economics" so I made the assumption that you were familiar with economic terms.
Let's just say I've seen those terms thrown around, but they're vague and obtuse enough to be practically meaningless. That's hardly surprising, considering their main use is rationalizing government intervention.
For example, no economy can ever reach "pareto optimality": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_optimality .. because every single voluntary exchange leaves both participants better off, because otherwise they wouldn't go through it. Since value is subjective, it really is enough that they both perceive a benefit in the trade.
If you want to argue against that, you'd have to somehow magically know how much I'd be willing to pay for a Ford Fiesta tomorrow at 4pm. But you can't. No one else can. Just like I couldn't possibly know your preferences at some given moment in time.
So yeah, pareto optimality is nonsense, as explained above, and so is a lot of the other stuff involved in these discussions. That's part of why I demanded definitions.
> I don't think there are many serious economists that you back you up on this assertion.
You'd have to look to the Austrian school of economic thought for that, but all of them would agree with me.
> This claims that I would be happier if there were no roads, no water supply, no education systems, no protection from criminals (which technically don't exist because there's no criminal behavior), and no protection from other countries.
All the services you list are provided by people working for a living. Do you want to claim people need governments to tell/force them to work for a living?
> I absolutely would like some of my money taken and spent on those thing.
No you don't. No one wants to be robbed, any more than beaten to a pulp with a baseball bat. What you might be thinking is that you're willing to pay for those services, but that would also apply without getting robbed.
> At the very least arguing economics won't get us to any common ground — I think we'd have to switch over to philosophy before we'd find common ground.
You're right about that :)
Do you think Basic Income will be sufficient enough to sustain anyone's lifestyle that they will _stop working_ out of spite?
Perhaps not out of "spite" as you suggest, but a simple time tradeoff. E.g. "Work 8 hours per day, and get $100 more. Or work 0 hours per and have $100 dollars less to spend, but 8 hours more to work on hobbies and leisure and social activities.
That situation exists today, and to a greater extent than it would with a basic income. Due to the loss of benefits, as income increases the working poor face huge effective marginal taxes, sometimes over 100% so that they are literally made worse off by earning more. See https://www.epionline.org/studies/r27/ for example.
All in all, it just doesn't "work".
just like water, money disappears forever once used.
water flows from the mountain into the sea, and one day the river will run dry.
the government is like Niagara falls, a huge waste of money/water.
Universal Basic Income would accelerate this flow of moneywater, and is so obviously a bad idea that its opposite, Universal Basic Outgo is a good idea.
UBO would reverse the flow of moneywater by taking the same monthly sum of money from every citizen and pumping it uphill.
this would motivate everybody to work harder, resulting in a happier society with enormous moneywater reserves in the mountains.
This is where the money comes from. It’s not just New York, but everywhere. And not just property taxes.
There's also a limit to how much people are willing to pay in property taxes before they move the fuck out (or stay away to begin with).
In a nutshell, there are limits to what governments can do with their economies.
And most people are actually happy, because they still get free college, free child daycare, etc.
How many people have any clue as to where tax revenues come from?
How many understand that other people have to earn that money first?
How many understand that if the people who earn money are burdened with much higher taxes to pay for someone else's BI, a lot of them them will just stop working because fuck that? How would that affect the burden on the remaining earners?
Please just think about it for a while.