SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
If you bring up UBI, or other reforms, you'll inevitably get someone who brings up: "voting yourself someone else's money".
You could convince me, except that things have gotten to an absurd state.
I look at some graphs of wealth inequality and it is unimaginably shocking. I never dreamed it could be this bad. More than 50% of the US wealth is owned by 5% of the people. [1] 35% is owned by only 1% of the population.
This image from this article also tells the story.
I'm not going to argue how accurate those numbers are. Rather, I will extrapolate the trend.
Let's continue the current trend to its logical absurd conclusion. The entire planet is owned by one single person. You (and everyone else) are one of the wage slaves in the bottom 99.99999999 % of the population (at least 8 decimal places). [7.5 billion people, minus that one person who owns everything, then divided by 7.5 billion people.]
Naturally, we should respect property ownership. Somehow this one person deserves and "earned" the wealth of the entire planet through his hard and diligent efforts and deserves to own everything and everyone. It is absurd on its face.
At this logical endpoint, it clearly seems that the rest of the planet should seize the wealth of the one person.
Wealth transfer has already happened. And is still happening. Republicans are just fine with this as long as it is all trickling upward.
Yes, "voting yourself someone else's money" involves taking away some of the absurd amounts of wealth hoarded up by a few. Amounts of individual wealth that one person couldn't spend in a lifetime; then leaves to others, who themselves can't spend it in their lifetime.
Not as a proposal, but just to make a point, hypothetically, if all of these people who exceed this threshold had their net worth capped at $100 Million, they would still be just fine. Yes, really! They would still live in fabulous homes, drive fabulous cars, and eat whatever they wanted, travel wherever and whenever they wanted -- for the rest of their natural lives.
In case my "one man owns the world" didn't get the idea across, I'll be more blunt. Any time too few people have owned way, way too much, and too many had nothing, there is always an uprising. I'm not proposing an uprising. I'm merely warning it is inevitable. Hopefully not in my lifetime. Maybe it would be better to solve this peacefully where the wealthiest, while heavily taxed, still end up, after taxes, fabulously wealthy beyond the dreams of most everyone else. I'm not proposing reducing all the rich people's wealth to some cap. Just that they should pay their fair share. Why are they the ones who get the tax cuts?
(Score: 2) by Zinnia Zirconium on Wednesday October 28 2020, @02:59AM
I want more things to be free for me and for everyone else.
Way back before Y2K7 I got free entertainment from broadcast radio and broadcast TV and and public library books. I got these things for free because they were paid for by advertising and by taxes (and by viewers like me. I used to donate to PBS but I don't anymore and I don't watch broadcast TV anymore).
In our modern times I get free music and free TV and free movies and free books from the internet. Internet access isn't free except actually it is or as my friends would say it's free for me. I have exactly the sort of background as tech nerd who pirates everything to accidentally my way to free internet access without trying and then I just stopped paying for it. I want everyone to have free internet like I do but convincing people free internet is everywhere is futile because the nature of people is not to do things unless the dominant influencers in their social networks say to do things.
So free entertainment by internet is free for me and for anyone nerdy enough to find access and for anyone else who really wants it really. I wish the social influencers would influence society to demand free internet access paid for by advertising or by taxes or just provided at a loss. Until then I'm still not going to pay because I have enough technical knowledge to get it for free.
Now free food would be nice and I'm willing to eat gruel because it's good enough if it keeps me alive to enjoy all the free entertainment I already have. If I had whatever is the appropriate background to know how I would totally be on board the pirated food scene. If there's a pirated food scene I want in. And then I want everyone else to have free food too but I expect nobody will want it as long as the social influencers influence people away from the pirated food scene.
"Money implies poverty." "From each according to ability, to each according to need." "If everyone already has what they need, the traveling salesman problem will take zero steps!" These things I believe. I don't want people to have less than they need because if everyone has what they need then so do I.