Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Universal Basic Income Is Silicon Valley’s Latest Scam

posted by martyb on Monday October 15 2018, @05:18AM   Printer-friendly
from the perpetual-motion dept.

An Anonymous Coward writes:

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

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Universal Basic Income Is Silicon Valley’s Latest Scam | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 233 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 16 2018, @05:22PM (2 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 16 2018, @05:22PM (#749604) Journal

    If that's just not enough for you, don't do it. Someone else will.

    Why? High taxes hurt them as much as they hurt me. The sharply reduced reward still remains.

    But keep in mind that if you're in that tax bracket, those dimes on the dollar are probably enough to fund a fairly lavish lifestyle and my guess is that you won't want to give it up.

    Unless, of course, they don't bother because the reward isn't worth the risk.

    Meanwhile in other countries with a much lower tax rate, new businesses will start up which routinely form zero profit subsidiaries in high tax land.

  • (Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday October 16 2018, @05:47PM (1 child)

    by sjames (2882) on Tuesday October 16 2018, @05:47PM (#749611) Journal

    Khallow is threatening to take his marbles and stomp off in a huff! OH NOES! Whatever will we do?!?

    Oh, I know: "BYE BYE! Don't let the door hit you where the Good Lord split you!"

    Hint: At one point, the Beatles were paying 95% in taxes. They didn't quit.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 16 2018, @06:56PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 16 2018, @06:56PM (#749640) Journal

      Hint: At one point, the Beatles were paying 95% in taxes. They didn't quit.

      Yea, right. [reddit.com]

      It is very hard to say since like all wealthy people they had excellent accountants who minimised their taxes as much as possible. But what the song taxman is referring to is the high marginal tax rate that Britain had at the time which was 83% on income over a certain amount. However that is not only what the song is referring to, it is mostly referring to the surtax. This tax was an additional tax on very high earners that took their highest bracket to around 95%.

      However whilst this number seems very high by the time Taxman came out in 1966 the Beatles were no longer paying that amount. Like today capital gains were taxed at the much lower rate of 30%. So Lennon and McCartney founded Northern Songs which went on the Stockmarket and thus allowed them to avoid the high tax rate and soon after that Harrison founded Harrissongs and Starr founded Startling Music for the same purpose as well as some other reasons to better promote their songs.

      Funny how there's always loopholes when these crazy high tax rates happen. So what appears to have happened here is that the Beatles got burned by these sky high taxes one year, took on competent tax advisors, and then only paid 30% thereafter.

      That doesn't quite fit the narrative, does it?