SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Think of it: The government prints more money or perhaps — god forbid — it taxes some corporate profits, then it showers the cash down on the people so they can continue to spend. As a result, more and more capital accumulates at the top. And with that capital comes more power to dictate the terms governing human existence.
UBI really just turns us from stakeholders or even citizens to mere consumers.
Meanwhile, UBI also obviates the need for people to consider true alternatives to living lives as passive consumers. Solutions like platform cooperatives, alternative currencies, favor banks, or employee-owned businesses, which actually threaten the status quo under which extractive monopolies have thrived, will seem unnecessary. Why bother signing up for the revolution if our bellies are full? Or just full enough?
Under the guise of compassion, UBI really just turns us from stakeholders or even citizens to mere consumers. Once the ability to create or exchange value is stripped from us, all we can do with every consumptive act is deliver more power to people who can finally, without any exaggeration, be called our corporate overlords.
No, income is nothing but a booby prize. If we're going to get a handout, we should demand not an allowance but assets. That's right: an ownership stake.
https://medium.com/s/powertrip/universal-basic-income-is-silicon-valleys-latest-scam-fd3e130b69a0
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 15 2018, @01:43PM (7 children)
Shares that can't be sold are an accounting fiction. It would be just another income scheme.
What is owned and why are we to pay a dividend on it?
As to citizenship, the deal killer for me is a UBI that incentivizes people to vote to make the UBI larger.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday October 15 2018, @07:18PM (2 children)
> the deal killer for me is a UBI that incentivizes people to vote to make the UBI larger.
No reason it has to - make it something simple, for example: everyone pays 10% off the top of their income as a UBI tax, which gets redistributed equally. Anyone with an above-average income is incentivized to keep the UBI small. Now, if income inequality is very large, then those with below-average income will have a sizable majority - but that majority dwindles rapidly as income inequality is moderated. It'll never go away completely, but there's lots of people, like yourself, that think the system is dangerous, and will tend to vote against their own economic interests to keep it in check.
Meanwhile, most UBI proposals I've seen are a bit more complicated, with the break-even point, where taxes fully neutralize the UBI and convert it from a net-positive to net negative, positioned somewhere in the high-lower class, or low-middle class. Meaning that most people pay more in taxes to support the UBI, than they receive as a UBI. Which gives the majority a financial incentive to vote for a reduction in UBI, allowing it to exist only so long as enough well-off individuals are willing to support it despite it taking money out of their own pockets.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 15 2018, @08:37PM (1 child)
What happens when politicians promise they'll raise it to 20%? Or 90%?
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday October 16 2018, @02:39AM
Depends how unequal the income distribution is, and how many people feel that promoting a strong work ethic is more important than putting a few more dollars in their own pocket. The less unequal the income distribution, the smaller the number of people who have to be willing to vote "work ethics" to tilt the balance towards a lower UBI.
Considering that the entire Republican party has largely dedicated itself to convincing working-class people to vote against their own financial best-interests, I'm not overly concerned that it's a terribly difficult thing to accomplish.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Friday October 19 2018, @01:41AM (3 children)
Many private and public companies have share classes that require board approval to transfer, and are effectively non-transferrable. They absolutely exist as an accounting fiction, but just like other accounting fictions they have a lot of uses.
1/nth the country itself. 1/nth all public owned assets, mineral rights, rights of way, bandwidth allocations, parks, tax revenues, fee revenues, licensing revenues, infrastructure, goodwill, ...
Same reason coca-cola pays dividends. The shareholders want them, and need them to attract investment, etc. This is why i handwaved linking them to other classes of free market shares; to keep the system accountable.
What exactly keeps the shareholders in coca-cola from voting for unsustainable dividends?
Having said that, it certainly raises the question what dividend level would in fact sustainable? How is that amount determined? Is it even non-zero? (Given that nation states currently exist as issuers of debt and printers of currency, these aren't exactly trivial questions... ) But I suspect 1/nth the country is worth something, don't you? And again, this is why i handwaved linking them to other classes of free market shares; to help keep the system accountable and sustainable.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 19 2018, @02:51AM (2 children)
Two things: first, that they are for the most part financially and economically literate, and second, it'll hurt the value of transferable Coca Cola shares which is a significant portion of the value of the wealth invested with Coca Cola. Unfortunately, neither is true with UBI. You have a large portion of the voter population which is not so understanding of finance and economics. And it won't matter to a similar portion whether there is value left in the US after they're done with it. They don't lose out financially unless things fall apart too soon.
One merely needs to look (in the US) at the ongoing problems with Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid to see that there's enough people with these sorts of problems to mess up UBI.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Friday October 19 2018, @03:49AM (1 child)
Again, I've handwaved linking these non-transferable shares to a more traditional free market tradeable share; precisely to get those 'self-regulating' / 'self-interested' aspects.
It simply wouldn't be up to the owners of the non-transferrable shares to vote themselves an increased dividend to unsustainable levels.
Nor would it be up to politicians to promise to up the dividend to buy votes.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 19 2018, @03:43PM