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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2020, @11:18PM (19 children)
That of "wealth inequality".
It always begins by assuming a zero-sum game. That in order for Jeff Bezos to make one more dollar, someone else has to have a dollar taken away from them. But wealth in a fiat money system is anything but a zero-sum game.
Jeff Bezos making an extra dollar yesterday did not in any way remove a dollar from your pocket. You could have also made yourself an extra dollar yesterday regardless of what JB made.
There will never be a situation as postulated in this journal entry where one person owns all wealth in the world and everyone else is destitute. There will be people who have more wealth than others, and when comparing the top vs bottom of that chart, the distance between will be huge. But nothing stops someone in the middle or the guy at the bottom from gaining wealth, because gaining wealth in a fiat money system is not a zero-sum game. You can always make more money regardless of what the guy at the top happens to be making.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2020, @11:27PM
Wealth isn't money!
(Score: 4, Touché) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday October 27 2020, @11:43PM (10 children)
And inflation totally isn't a thing. And people definitely don't get cut off from the ability to make money by things like, just to give a random and in no way pertinent example, the intersection of a pandemic and a ruling oligarchy hell-bent on "drowning the government in the bathtub." Nope. Totally does *not* happen. Can't happen. This is Uh-murr'ka, where if you're poor it's your fault!
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2020, @12:40AM (9 children)
In many ways, yes, it is.
Ever notice how in the poor neighborhoods, everyone is always burning dollar bills and pouring coins down the drain?
Maybe you haven't noticed that exact effect, but smoking may as well be "burning dollar bills" and all the Colt-45's downed may as well be pouring coin money down the drain.
Did you ever consider how much more money a poor household might have each year, if only they didn't burn half of it on tobacco and burn the other half on alcohol?
One's wealth is determined by the choices one makes. Make bad choices, get no wealth. So in the end, it is your fault.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2020, @02:05AM (8 children)
You know, Johnny Depp was spending $15,000 a Month, on wine. That's just the wine. And you want to lecture us about poor neighborhoods? The richies are the real degenerates, going to Jeffry Epstein's (or other richies) private islands to throw away a lot of their money on debauchery and human trafficking of children. Then need to have their money taken away from them, before the spend it unwisely on more debauchery and criminal activities. Like Molly's Game [wikipedia.org].
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2020, @02:13AM (3 children)
The poor are poor because of the terrible choices they make with their money.
Such as burning dollar bills in the form of cigarettes or flushing coins in the form of plural Colt-45's a night.
But the problem with liberals is they can't see that the problems are because of the choices people make. They always have to shift the blame to someone/somewhere else, i.e., to a bogey man, in order to avoid having to accept that the problems are self inflicted.
Liberals have no concept of "personal responsibility". Any problem anyone has, in the liberal mind, has to have a bogey man somewhere that is causing it.
Your response illuminates this liberal mindset so well.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday October 28 2020, @02:20AM (2 children)
This would be a poor, bad-faith argument if you weren't trolling. It's an even worse troll. I don't know what kind of reaction you were expecting, but this is such a simplified, shortsighted approach that I can't even be annoyed with you for posting it. Incidentally, this mindset is one reason I've resolutely remained free of all vices (except caffeine, but the world runs on coffee...).
Generally people drink or smoke to soothe some sort of pain. Fixing the root cause will do a lot to stem the tide of addictions. You, of course, don't give a shit.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2020, @03:13PM (1 child)
Translation, they are mentally deficient and unable to handle the truth.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday October 28 2020, @08:26PM
And are they any less human for it? Furthermore, were they more human before whatever happened to drive them to drink or drugs happened to them? If so, what specifically is it about trauma that dehumanizes a person?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 28 2020, @02:22AM (3 children)
What exactly is wrong with taking the money away via said debauchery? Sure, the microscopic example of child trafficking is bad, but a $15k per month wine bill just isn't a big deal. Depp gets his booze supply and the money gets moved on without any machinations from the likes of you. It's like you've never thought about this.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Arik on Wednesday October 28 2020, @03:17AM
What's wrong with the potlach?
What's wrong with parties and degeneracy generally?
I've generally been on the other side, I've always been a bit of a degenerate, and proud of it. I'd expect you to be the one to bring up the downsides. I've always been of the opinion that debauchery, like virtue or oxygen, is necessary for life - though each can become poisonous in excess.
The hangovers, there's a start. The consequences. Tomorrow you're homeless/tonight it's a blast.
I have no problem with people spending their money on debauchery, generally. You tell me. What are the negative consequences of debauchery?
But let's refer back to the parent journal entry as topic and context. It's not just that some people foolishly spend their money on debauchery. It's that, combined with the fact that some people have control and use of enormous amounts of money they didn't earn - such huge unearned fortunes that a handful of people 'can buy and sell' millions of their brethren. This creates a situation truly primed for abuse - not just the sort of abuse that inflict horrible sufferings on individuals, but also the sort that renders our entire species as a whole less fit to survive.
"a $15k per month wine bill just isn't a big deal"
In the context within which the man was navigating at the time, that's a fair statement.
In the context of a world where children starve to death and die for lack of a few cents every day it's obscene.
I'm not judging the man; it may be that all we can expect of him is to navigate the obstacles life gives him and accomplish some good along the way, and it may be that he managed to do just that. But in the broader context, it's still a warning sign for our species; a reminder that for all our advances in physical technology our social technology has yet to conquer some of the basic difficulties that have plagued our species for tens of millennia.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2020, @03:27AM (1 child)
This very question marks you as a whore, khallow. We already knew you "service" the rich, out of jealously and envy. Go find the remaining Kock Bro.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 28 2020, @04:57AM
It marks me as a libertarian. I don't defend people only when they and their choices are popular. If we can punish people we don't like for moral reasons, we can punish you for the same.
But even if I were a whore, what's it to you? Scared I'll take your man?
Sorry, you just don't get it. If I really were that kind of whore, I'd be a hell of a lot richer than I am. And I sure wouldn't be working at Yellowstone pushing paper around and/or checking fire extinguishers and door locks (depending on the season).
I live in a great place to be, get paid for fun work, and have a really low cost of living. But it sounds to me from your remarks about "whoring", that you just haven't figured out something similar for your life. I hope you do some day.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2020, @03:11AM (5 children)
I'm so glad you brought that up.
You're absolutely right. And since 70% of the US economy is consumer spending, we should create incentives for more of that. Which will spur new businesses, new wealth creation and more prosperity.
How do we do that? By spreading it around. Not necessarily with UBI. And not necessarily with social programs (although that couldn't hurt).
We spread it around by using the tax code to *strongly* incentivize business investment in goods and services over profit taking. This will drive new business development and employment.
We spread it around by raising wages significantly. More people having more money to spend will feed revenue to those new businesses, growing the economy and employment. That spurs more investment -- in a virtuous cycle that benefits *everyone*
In fact, if we don't do those things we're in for some serious problems in our economy. Because as more wealth is concentrated into fewer hands, less money will flow into consumer spending. Because there are only so many houses, cars, cinnamon buns, miniskirts, wifi routers, china sets, laptops, duvets, half-caf soy lattes, gym memberships, Spotify subscriptions and all manner of other stuff that one person or family can reasonably use.
And when there aren't enough consumers to meet the supply, we end up in an economic death spiral.
The choice seems pretty clear.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 28 2020, @05:01AM (4 children)
100% of the economy is consumer spending. You just don't acknowledge a fair bunch of the consumers (such as the new businesses). And to speak of "consumer spending" as being a fixed amount of the economy, demonstrates that you are unaware that economic activity != the economy.
My take is that if you want new businesses, new wealth creation, and more prosperity, then maybe that should be the things you incentivize instead!
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2020, @05:14AM (3 children)
You're a disingenuous jackass.
Who said anything about it being a "fixed amount?" That's just the numbers from 2019 [thebalance.com]:
Get back under your bridge!
(Score: 1, Redundant) by khallow on Wednesday October 28 2020, @01:00PM (1 child)
I didn't mean to imply that it was somehow a constant part of the economy. The real problem here is that you are conflating a measure of economic activity (GDP is another example) with the economy. The problem comes in with your proposed solution:
So rather than incentivize new businesses, new wealth creation, and more prosperity, we're instead going to incentivize more consumer spending (for a limited definition of consumer)? The annoying thing here is that the US has been incentivizing consumer spending for the better part of a century. That noodle has been pushed hard. Any value to gain from it has been gained, IMHO.
Let's go back to that earlier post:
In the first paragraph, we're going to spur new business and new wealth by destroying much of the value of the new business and wealth. In the second, we're going to jack up the cost of employees without providing anything of value to the employer. That again will reduce the value of all business and wealth in the US. It'll spur investment - in automation and in other countries.
As to the "serious problems", you don't have that wealth is concentrating in the first place - or that even if it were, that it would be remotely relevant to us (you're doing some erroneous zero sum game thinking). Further, the measure of wealth is greatly inflated [soylentnews.org] in the first place - my take in large part due to our present, global measures to fight covid and such, which happen to neuter new investment and channel the entire planet into a few dubious safe havens. And this complaining about running out of stuff to consume indicates we've already gone too far with incentivizing consumer demand. Time to look at the warning signs.
My take on the matter? Simplify the tax code so that profit taking isn't double taxed. I suggest outright ending the corporate tax as a means. Take a hard look at the regulations that drive up the costs of employing people and cull them - for a relatively minor example, the HR department exists because regulation has created a very risky hiring/firing environment requiring specialized bureaucrats. End Social Security outright - that drives up the cost of employees by a substantial amount (about 15%). End luxury taxes. Maybe look at temporarily subsidizing employment, should that be a problem.
As to consumer spending, give the consumer a break. Let people pay off their cards for a while. They're not a resource you can dial to a new 11 every time you want more magic in your economy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2020, @06:14PM
Get back under your bridge!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 29 2020, @12:09PM
The corresponding quotes from the balance [sic]:
Again, an economy is not just GDP or "production". Even your sources are careful enough to get that right.
As to the bridge, you're under my bridge now. Don't like it? Don't insist on being wrong.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday October 28 2020, @03:19PM
Forget dollars for a second. Wealth isn't money. Wealth is the resources of the planet. Or the nation.
There is a fixed set of resources. Too many of them are concentrated into the hands of too few. Thus others have little or nothing while a few have more than they need. More than they can even use in a lifetime. Safely hoarded away.
Of course, they "invest" which really means they rent their resources out. Extracting more wealth from those less wealthy.
Jeff Bezos having more land absolutely does remove it from someone else. Having more groceries does remove it from someone else (there are only so many, grown by twinkie farmers and taco ranchers).
There probably never will be a situation as I describe where one person owns everything -- because everyone else will revolt long before that point. The masses will storm the gates with torches and pitchforks.
The guy at the bottom is blocked from gaining wealth. Rarely does opportunity come along for them because all their time and energies are spent just trying to survive. Jeff Bezos can spend all his time and energy on other pursuits, comfortable with never worrying about where his next meal is coming from.
When Lucifer was cast out of heaven down to Earth, theologians debate whether he landed in Florida or Texas.