Universal Income.

Belz... said:
Lionking, smartcooky has at least made a good effort to explain why it would work. Could you perhaps muster a bit of effort yourself to counter his points that doesn't involve you just saying "nuh-huh"?
Click to expand...

If his logic is so sound, why are UBI systems not commonplace?
 
lionking said:
If his logic is so sound, why are UBI systems not commonplace?
Click to expand...

Because what's popular and what is practical are not the same set of things.

In the US, for example, there's so much emotional aversion to anything that even minimally shares properties with socialism or communism, and so much moral panic about people getting "something for nothing" that the idea is very difficult to sell regardless of how well it might work.
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
If his logic is so sound, why are UBI systems not commonplace?
Click to expand...

"If his logic is so sound, why is slavery still a thing?"

Dude, your logic isn't even valid.

That's not a response to what I said. You have not made an argument in response to his. And to my suggestion that you do, you dodge the question. Why?
 
Last edited:
A thought experiment...

If some rich benefactor, say a mysterious person with truly unlimited resources, were to decide to be the provider of UBI for every citizen of a country. Everyone suddenly has an additional $500 each month to do with what they wish, spend, invest, save or some combination of the three. The only proviso is that the extra $500 is not taxable in any way (so the government does not get a tax take from the UBI). How would that impact the economy of that country?

(Remember this is a thought experiment so you can't question how its possible that any of its premises are possible. It is what it is, and we simply make it happen)

Of course it would massively boost the economy? To deny this is to deny logic. Does anyone disagree?
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
A thought experiment...

If some rich benefactor, say a mysterious person with truly unlimited resources, were to decide to be the provider of UBI for every citizen of a country. Everyone suddenly has an additional $500 each month to do with what they wish, spend, invest, save or some combination of the three. The only proviso is that the extra $500 is not taxable in any way (so the government does not get a tax take from the UBI). How would that impact the economy of that country?

(Remember this is a thought experiment so you can't question how its possible that any of its premises are possible. It is what it is, and we simply make it happen)

Of course it would massively boost the economy? To deny this is to deny logic. Does anyone disagree?
Click to expand...

It may not boost the economy. If that rich benefactor was going to spend the money anyway it would have a neutral effect on the economy.
 
Anytime economic growth outpaces inflation is a net gain. It's the reason why deficit spending in theory isn't as big of a deal as people think it is. Of course, if the money being borrowed isn't contributing to economic growth there's a problem. But, being as how normal people don't hide money in overseas bank accounts, hide their money in shell corporations, and pay their taxes owed, I don't see how UBI payments cannot result in economic growth.

And just imagine if it was funded instead of borrowed.
 
Some one feeding money into an economy will boost the economy, obviously.

The question is how the economy can feed money into itself to boost itself.

George Soros could easily boost the economy of, say, Venezuela. But where does that money come from? All the other Venezuelas he's uplifted? Of course not. It's come from all his one-percenter economic exploitation over the years. And of course he's not actually uplifting impoverished countries anyway.
 
smartcooky said:
A thought experiment...

If some rich benefactor, say a mysterious person with truly unlimited resources, were to decide to be the provider of UBI for every citizen of a country. Everyone suddenly has an additional $500 each month to do with what they wish, spend, invest, save or some combination of the three. The only proviso is that the extra $500 is not taxable in any way (so the government does not get a tax take from the UBI). How would that impact the economy of that country?

(Remember this is a thought experiment so you can't question how its possible that any of its premises are possible. It is what it is, and we simply make it happen)

Of course it would massively boost the economy? To deny this is to deny logic. Does anyone disagree?
Click to expand...

But a rich benefactor would not do this, governments would. Even with one-off payments during covid, there were consequences, as we are seeing around the world. Countries are facing massive deficits (Australia’s will be over $A1 trillion).

Replace the one-off payments with monthly payments to everyone and watch the deficits soar (as I pointed out earlier, if the UBI matched the age pension in Australia, it would cost $300b a year).

This is one reason why it won’t happen.
 
theprestige said:
Some one feeding money into an economy will boost the economy, obviously.

The question is how the economy can feed money into itself to boost itself.

George Soros could easily boost the economy of, say, Venezuela. But where does that money come from? All the other Venezuelas he's uplifted? Of course not. It's come from all his one-percenter economic exploitation over the years. And of course he's not actually uplifting impoverished countries anyway.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Deficit spending per se is not the problem, massive and sustained deficit spending is.
 
lionking said:
If his logic is so sound, why are UBI systems not commonplace?
Click to expand...

Breathtaking illogic.

(Going back in time a bit) ... if the idea of universal suffrage is so sound, why don't women have the vote?
 
smartcooky said:
Of course it would massively boost the economy? To deny this is to deny logic. Does anyone disagree?
Click to expand...
Yes, but you haven't accounted for what he diverted that money from in your thought experiment. It's more likely to be simply neutral to the overall economy in reality since he is diverting it from something else.
 
theprestige said:
Some one feeding money into an economy will boost the economy, obviously.

The question is how the economy can feed money into itself to boost itself.

George Soros could easily boost the economy of, say, Venezuela. But where does that money come from? All the other Venezuelas he's uplifted? Of course not. It's come from all his one-percenter economic exploitation over the years. And of course he's not actually uplifting impoverished countries anyway.
Click to expand...

Why do right-wingers always bring up Soros?
 
lionking said:
But a rich benefactor would not do this, governments would. Even with one-off payments during covid, there were consequences, as we are seeing around the world. Countries are facing massive deficits (Australia’s will be over $A1 trillion).

Replace the one-off payments with monthly payments to everyone and watch the deficits soar (as I pointed out earlier, if the UBI matched the age pension in Australia, it would cost $300b a year).

This is one reason why it won’t happen.
Click to expand...

Another dodge. The hypothetical benefactor DOES do this, either via taxes or from his own benevolence.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
Yes, but you haven't accounted for what he diverted that money from in your thought experiment. It's more likely to be simply neutral to the overall economy in reality since he is diverting it from something else.
Click to expand...

rjh01 said:
It may not boost the economy. If that rich benefactor was going to spend the money anyway it would have a neutral effect on the economy.
Click to expand...

lionking said:
But a rich benefactor would not do this, governments would. Even with one-off payments during covid, there were consequences, as we are seeing around the world. Countries are facing massive deficits (Australia’s will be over $A1 trillion).

Replace the one-off payments with monthly payments to everyone and watch the deficits soar (as I pointed out earlier, if the UBI matched the age pension in Australia, it would cost $300b a year).

This is one reason why it won’t happen.
Click to expand...

As I said, it is a thought experiment, and its my thought experiment, so only I get to set the conditions. No-one else is allowed to question the aspects of it, they are only allowed to agree or disagree with the conclusions.

For the purposes of the thought experiment, you must take it as read that there IS a rich benefactor who will do this, otherwise its not my thought experiment an more.

The only valid responses are "agree" or "disagree" with the conclusion. Once you have done that, only then do you get to argue why you agree or disagree.

I am taking this somewhere once I get a consensus
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom