Pat @Pat@qoto.org

@freemo

> In fact such a huge portion of the poor have drug and alcohol problems by giving them money would be a death sentence for a large portion of them.

I think not having the stress of worrying about how they're going to pay the rent would improve the situation. Addicts get their fix anyway they can, even if they have to steal to get the money. UBI would reduce crime.

>For the same reason if you see a homeless person never give them money, to do so you will likely harm them immeasurably. Instead feed them, give them clothes, point them to rehab and help centers.

Agree. I usually just give them food. But UBI is much different. It's continuous as long as they need it. It keeps them from having to beg for food or money, and it provides certainty in their lives.

>For the record my opinion comes from the fact that I grew up in extreme poverty. I grew up on welfare and the neighboorhood I was in was extremely poor. I speak as someone who live a life around and as a poor person and who has seen it first hand, and eventually lifted myself out of it.

We have similar backgrounds then, in that regard.

@freemo
>I see people with extremely expensive shoes and customized cars meanwhile they cant afford child support and their house is falling apart. Even personally I cant tell you how many of my poor friends when the COVID checks came in started posting how they were going to buy a playstation or some other item they didnt need.

If someone can afford to buy a custom car or a playstation or they own a house (usually), then they are doing better than most people who are truly poor.

>Consider the following. There is a rich person who has retired. They have millions of dollars...

That person wouldn't get UBI. It only goes to people who need it for food, clothing, rent, education, etc.; not to wealthy people.

>The issue still remains that anything that just dumps a load of cash taken from others in the laps of the middle class or poor is generally going to cause more harm than good.

Even when that cash comes from wealth generation? If the economy is hot, with full employment and lots of wealth generation, that causes inflation as much or more so than a few dollars given to poor people. (The UBI wouldn't go to the middle class who have enough to eat, and pay rent, etc.)

> It can just as easily be provided by using the taxes to build public schools that are free to use. In this way it wouldnt drive the price up but in fact through competition drive the prices down.

Do you mean government-run universities? They typically don't provide as good of an education as privately run schools.

>But the overwhelming majority of poor people have bad financial education and this is often passed down generationally.

Agree.

>Except it doesnt because it devastates the market, drives prices up, and in fact makes it harder for poor people to pull themselves up, not better. Free unconditional money is never going to work because for every 10 people 1 might pull themselves up while the other 9 just burn the cash and drive up the prices for everyone else. In the end even that 1 person who wants to life themselves up will fail to do so as a result of the fallout of the UBI on the economy.

As I said, full employment and greater wealth creation drives inflation too, so either way, when folks have more money -- regardless of the source -- it's going to drive inflation.

All ten of those people will be lifted up. Some more than others. Those who do nothing but just use the money to buy food, clothing, housing, are going to be better off, too. And the one (if indeed it's just 10%) will no longer need the UBI.

@freemo

>"In fact most poor or middle class people are wasting their money on cars, fancy shoes, or expensive phones..."

I assure you, poor people are not buying cars and expensive items. They spend their money on food, rent, and maybe if they have some money at the end of the week, they go to the thrift store to buy used clothing.

>"A flat tax where everyone of any income pays the same percentage is not a redistribution."

A flat tax is what I was proposing. About .1% to .3% of income for everybody. And yes, it is a redistribution because it isn't transferred to recipients based on a percentage, it goes to the lowest income or lowest wealth people, so it works out to be a redistribution. It's just more fair than the way taxes redistribute the wealth today.

Regarding free education, that distorts the market. The main reason why education is so expensive today is because of government subsidies for education. That extra demand drives up the price of education. It's better for the market to decide what to spend it on, what type of education, how to finance it, etc.

Also, there are a lot of reasons why people are poor. A lot of well-educated people are poor because they have huge student loans, or because they got a degree in a field that has no demand for their skill set right now.

UBI helps people to pull themselves out of whatever they are in. It gives them a chance to just have time to think about what they should do, to not have to rob a store to get food or pay rent, to have a decent car that doesn't breakdown all the time so they're late for work and lose their job. This is the reality. This is what poor people face. They don't even have the luxury to even think about how to manage their money. The money is gone on essentials before the week is up.

@freemo

A tax, by definition, is a redistribution of wealth. It's just a matter of who pays and who receives. A UBI collects the money fairly and distributes it fairly. The way it's done now is completely unfair. It's collected mostly from those who don't understand the loopholes or who are unable to take advantage of them, and then it's redistributed to politicians, and their cronies.

It's a matter of fairness.

Also, UBI helps prevent revolutions. Eventually, all the politicians and billionaires will end up wearing orange jumpsuits in a Tennessee re-education camp, and everybody loses their freedom. That's no good, but that's what will happen if they continue the way they are doing now.

UBI acts as a prophylactic to socialist/communist revolutions.

@freemo

worth = value,
not worth = wealth

@freemo

I understand what you are saying about investment vs. spending. But the amount that is diverted from investments and luxury goods is a small amount, percentage wise -- a few basis points, while the amount received by recipients is a much higher percentage. It makes a huge difference to the lives of those people while having little effect on everyone who pays the tax. This would also help with things like crime and mental health, as we discussed earlier. Money problems for poor people is a huge stressor, whereas a few basis points off of income is not even felt.

As to the government making specific decisions about how people can improve their lives, like free education -- I think people are better at making their own decisions.

@freemo

People buying "junk" is bad for the economy but people buying "luxury things" is fine? It's a free market, so none of it is "junk", it all has the value the the market participates have placed on it. It's all worth exactly what the market says it's worth. But that value, that price discovery, happens best when there are more buyers and more sellers. Not all of the UBI recipients will spend the money. Many will use it to get an education, start a small business, etc. The ones who make the right decisions will do better. That's how markets work.

@freemo

The idea is to provide a mechanism whereby the effects of concentrated wealth, as we discussed elsewhere in this thread, could be mitigated, so that there will be more participants and then the markets and price discovery would function better.

Your proposal (facetious, I assume) would do the opposite, making fewer participants.

Just a few basis points on all gross income, no deductions, no exemptions, would be enough to fund such a thing. If the tax is a flat tax, no loopholes, and the UBI is distributed in a similar manner with no favoritism, and so as to increase market participation, that's a good thing. And the government can't muck things up. It's automatic. Everybody pays a tiny fraction of income.

It's better than "Build Back Better" where all the polititians and government cronies decide who gets the money in a corrupt fashion.

@freemo

(clarification - no need to respond)

I just had a brewery favorite my "free beer" toot and thought others might have misunderstood the metaphor also.

"Free beer" in the economics context means something like UBI or other similar transfer to the general population so wealth is more evenly distributed and more people can participate in markets so the markets function better ("more customers").

Kind of like "Build Back Butter", something like that.

@pthenq1

Yes, there is a lot of ageist attacks on Biden, but that wasn't my intent. It was just a funny subject.

I don't think they are that worried about POTUS DNA. Every international organization that is capable, I'm sure, already has his DNA, considering that presidential candidates shake the hands of thousands and thousands of people during a campaign.

But I guess the secret service has to check the restrooms for security reasons before he uses them.

@freemo @roboneko @vulgate

Agree. Although we're in the middle of a pandemic, so the times are atypical. But even before, there seemed to be a lot of people with issues.

Anecdotally, I'd have to agree about central Europe, if you mean like Liechtenstein, Austria, Switzerland, etc. But that's just anecdotes. I'd like to see the results of a global lost-wallet study, to see exactly how good folks really are among the various regions.

@freemo @roboneko @vulgate

Stressors can also have a big effect, just like overall culture/religion, etc. When freedom is limited or when resources and wealth are tight, then people will become less benevolent. Like rats put into a small cage or given less food.

This is where the economic system can have an indirect effect on whether people are are good or bad. If the system is better at producing more wealth, like capitalism, and that wealth is not concentrated, then there is less stress on the system and people act better.

And of course there are competitive global forces at work too.

@freemo @roboneko @vulgate

There are a lot of folks who are good, you just don't hear about it because the news, and the rumor mills focus on the bad folks.

Plus I didn't say that they innately are altruistic, I said that most do not take advantage -- whether that's because they don't want to hurt others or it's because they don't want to go to hell, or they don't want to face public ridicule, or for whatever reason. This is why culture, religion, informal norms, etc. are so important. They influence how people act and whether or not they will take advantage or do bad things.

I don't think that the economic system really effects that so much.

@pthenq1

I am kind of old already...

Lots of people have sharted before, irrespective of their age. Babies do it, too.

And I don't think you can call it bullying when the target is POTUS and I'm just a geek with a keyboard.

@freemo @roboneko @vulgate

>people are just shit and will take advantage any time they have power.

*Some* people take advantage, most don't. The number of people who DO take advantage and do bad things is largely effected by factors outside of the economic system, like the overall cultural or religious values that ultimately effect how people will participate in the system -- i.e., whether they do good or evil.

@vulgate @freemo

I wouldn't buy stuff from a company that killed their customers and had no other human concerns.

And when companies do bad things, they get sued, or their management gets thrown in prison.

@freemo

By common resource I mean something that can't be owned, like air (atmosphere) where it just flows around and if someone uses it or alters it (pollution) then it effects everyone. I think that is one of those cases where there needs to be some government to handle that.

Also, you mentioned infinite demand/finite supply. There is an opposite condition also where wealth accumulates so that very few can actually have meaningful participation in markets, i.e., a lot of poor folks and a few rich folks, then the market participants are reduced to only the few rich folks. Markets work better when there are a lot of participants and liquidity.

@freemo

What about common resources?

Common resource = a resource that can't be owned or controlled by a single entity (like air, scarce oceanic resources, EM (electromagnetic spectrum), etc.)

@freemo

I'd add to that list:

*... value determined by the market participants

Also, "free" as in "freedom", (or free beer, too, if that brings in more customers).

Literal shitposting...