The notion of unearned income is fundamentally flawed because income is never unearned. — NOS4A2

"Earn" is one of those ambiguous words with many different meanings. Equivocation between those distinct meanings may make your statement true. But then the labourer might earn a wage in one sense of the word, the investor might earn a profit in another sense of the word, and even the thief might earn, in the sense of deserve the money stolen in retribution. Anyway, you should see that "income is never unearned" requires equivocation between distinct senses of "earn". And if you restrict "earn" to legal ventures, and "income" to legally sourced money, you have a useless statement which cannot even be called a tautology because it doesn't represent any reality.

Metaphysician Undercover
7k
The notion of unearned income is fundamentally flawed because income is never unearned.
— NOS4A2

"Earn" is one of those ambiguous words with many different meanings. Equivocation between those distinct meanings may make your statement true. But then the labourer might earn a wage in one sense of the word, the investor might earn a profit in another sense of the word, and even the thief might earn, in the sense of deserve the money stolen in retribution. Anyway, you should see that "income is never unearned" requires equivocation between distinct senses of "earn". And if you restrict "earn" to legal ventures, and "income" to legally sourced money, you have a useless statement which cannot even be called a tautology because it doesn't represent any reality. — Metaphysician Undercover

As I have mentioned several times...these days, one should be able to EARN one's living by simply staying out of the way.

There are people who do more for productivity by just going home. There are bosses, fellow workers, and underlings who fall into that category. Is there anyone here who can say they do not know of someone who would have helped the productivity of a particular company...by just disappearing?

So...if we recognize that some people are only taking up space for another person or a machine that could increase productivity...that person should be paid to stay out of the way. All he/she is doing is what must be done...trying to EARN a living. Let's be real about it...and pay them to stay away. The alternative is to let them starve to death...or to hurt productivity...both of which make a lot less sense than paying them to stay away.

There are bosses, fellow workers, and underlings who fall into that category. — Frank Apisa

OK, but when we pay the bosses to disappear they might want more money than the underlings we pay to disappear. Can we make the bosses take a cut in pay, or do they disappear with a large salary?

Metaphysician Undercover
7k
There are bosses, fellow workers, and underlings who fall into that category.
— Frank Apisa

OK, but when we pay the bosses to disappear they might want more money than the underlings we pay to disappear. Can we make the bosses take a cut in pay, or do they disappear with a large salary? — Metaphysician Undercover

Anyone who cannot be more productive than another human...or a machine, robot, or computer...

...should take up the job of "stay out of the way" specialist.

They should all get paid the same.

If a guy is a "boss" who cannot do the job as well as someone or something else...he can downsize until he fits in a niche where he can be more productive. (The opposite end of the Peter Principle ladder.)

The people who actually can be productive and who do the work...should make really decent bucks. Much more than the SOOTW specialists.

You’re right. It was an ambiguous statement, and a drunken one at that. What I mean is a wage, an income, money, doesn’t just fall out of the sky. It has to be “earned” or otherwise acquired through some form of work or effort or planning.

There are lots of ways of gaining money that does not involve productive work, NOS. Marrying into it, inheriting it, swindling others out of it are just a few examples of those ways.

Money itself is just a means to an end...and the "end" is "the distribution" of what people need and want.

Accumulating money is one of the basest ways of saying "my dick is bigger than your dick." (Yeah, yanking dicks out and actually comparing is not as base.)

We can simply invent a different, more efficient, way of distribution...especially since so much of the work to obtain the stuff we need and want is done by machines.

“Gaining money” and using it how one chooses is one thing; taking and distributing that money to others is quite another. The former is just; the latter is unjust.

As for the argument that we should institute a UBI because jobs are becoming automated, the same fears have gripped workers throughout history whenever new innovations threatened industries. In each case there has been no reason to have a UBI.

NOS4A2
3.1k
↪Frank Apisa

“Gaining money” and using it how one chooses is one thing; taking and distributing that money to others is quite another. The former is just; the latter is unjust.

As for the argument that we should institute a UBI because jobs are becoming automated, the same fears have gripped workers throughout history whenever new innovations threatened industries. In each case there has been no reason to have a UBI. — NOS4A2

Okay...stick with that.

At one point in our history, there were people who stuck with the notion that kids should be put to work in coal mines...and work 10 - 12 hours days 5 1/2 days a week.

Those opinions are allowed.

but in reality.... — I like sushi

Many years ago, working at minimum wage- maybe $2.90/hour - I was getting my 90 day review for a 25 cents/hour raise and being completely green at that review I detailed for the young woman how I probably would need about $15/hour, that being my modest calculation of what a decent life cost, at the low end. I got my raise, from $2.90 to $3.15/hour.

And that's the reality: woefully inadequate wages. And it's a reality that is coming home to roost for real. The rich have a short period to learn and get the message: when they've taken it all, the folks they've taken it from, who have nothing of their own left, are coming to take theirs back, easy way or hard way, but way.

In each case there has been no reason to have a UBI. — NOS4A2

IN each case there has been every reason. What you mean is that the petitioners and those they represented were put off until death.

Wondering what are thoughts after a very successful large scale UBI plan during COVID-19, and even smaller scale permanent UBI plans going into effect in my state of residence?

It's a good idea to pump money into the bottom of the economy, because money creates value as it spirals upward, however, I think a significant increase in minimum wage, with tax breaks for companies paying it, is a better approach than a Universal Basic Income - because value would still be derived for what is effectively a giveaway, but a giveaway that doesn't point a giant spotlight at quantitative easing. In this way, I think you can maintain all the natural capitalist incentives and avoid many of the inflationary effects on prices and wages of giving away free cash.

Two other considerations are giving away free money will always draw a crowd, so you'll immediately have increased immigration. (Or, you can attract businesses with low tax rates - even if this cancels out with high minimum wages.)

Also, you open the door to Communism. To ensure people are not claiming UBI in all 50 states of the Union, you'd have to means test it in the sense you'd need to know who had claimed. It would require a massive invasive bureaucracy to give away free cash - which is just a hop, skip and a slump from Communism.

If there is a starving person in the street, am I entitled to mug you and give what I take from you to the starving person?

Obviously not. I could point out that this person is starving and ask you to recognize that you have some obligation to help that person out, or I could get off my high horse and help them out myself. But what I would not be entitled to do is mug you for the starving person's sake.

Yet that's what the state does. It's unjust.

Unless it is those who created the problem who are being taxed to pay for it - parents, that is. But why should I be made to pay for the bad luck or fecklessness of your offspring? It is unjust to make me pay for the education of your offspring, or to provide a safety net for them should they make bad choices or be unlucky enough to have no marketable skills, or pay to have them policed and governed.

So by all means let's have a universal basic income - I agree that all innocent persons are entitled to lives of dignity free from the oppression of having to work - but for christ's sake make sure the right people pay for it. Tax the polluters: the breeders. Pay the cost - the full cost - of your silly and self-indulgent and immoral decision. Those of us who have had the good sense and moral insight not to subject others to a life of ignorance in a dangerous world full of random hazards and depraved people and in which you have to work or starve, should not pay a penny.

Great stuff from Pfhorrest. Forum quality overall just shot up.

It's a good idea to pump money into the bottom of the economy, because money creates value as it spirals upward, however, I think a significant increase in minimum wage, with tax breaks for companies paying it, is a better approach than a Universal Basic Income - because value would still be derived for what is effectively a giveaway, but a giveaway that doesn't point a giant spotlight at quantitative easing. In this way, I think you can maintain all the natural capitalist incentives and avoid many of the inflationary effects on prices and wages of giving away free cash. — counterpunch

Why would you need to give companies a tax break for paying the minimum wage? Wages are always deducted from taxable profit anyways.

Two other considerations are giving away free money will always draw a crowd, so you'll immediately have increased immigration. (Or, you can attract businesses with low tax rates - even if this cancels out with high minimum wages.) — counterpunch

Assuming you pay the UBI to non-citizens, which seems unlikely.

Also, you open the door to Communism. To ensure people are not claiming UBI in all 50 states of the Union, you'd have to means test it in the sense you'd need to know who had claimed. — counterpunch

I don't think you need any kind of massive bureaucracy. That's kind of the advantage of an universal basic income. You can just add it to the taxable income of anyone who claims it. Since people already have to declare their income (and usually the employer transmits that information to the tax authorities automatically), it'd not create any new difficulties.

The notion that people should be allowed to keep their income and wealth secret from the state is dubious anyways.

Yet that's what the state does. — Bartricks

Except, the state doesn't do that, the state has democratic legitimacy and the state is the institution establishing property as a right in the first place.

so it's okay to mug me and to give the proceeds to the hungry person if there's been a vote on it?? What moral planet are you on?

Why would you need to give companies a tax break for paying the minimum wage? Wages are always deducted from taxable profit anyways. — Echarmion

Government is perfectly entitled to tax as it sees fit, and to set minimum wages as it sees fit. Why reinvent the wheel?

so it's okay to mug me and to give the proceeds to the hungry person if there's been a vote on it?? What moral planet are you on? — Bartricks

You aren't mugged. That's just nonsense. If you have a contract that entitles you to an income, that income is already subject to taxes. The same is true for wealth which you acquire under the express protection of the state. None of these things is somehow naturally assigned to you in full and without obligation.

Government is perfectly entitled to tax as it sees fit, and to set minimum wages as it sees fit. Why reinvent the wheel? — counterpunch

Yeah that's my question. An additional tax break seems like double dipping for the company.

Yeah that's my question. An additional tax break seems like double dipping for the company. — Echarmion

How so?

How so? — counterpunch

Corporate taxes are on profit, not turnover. So if you pay higher wages, you already pay less taxes.

I do not voluntarily pay tax. I am taxed and if I refuse to pay I will be kidnapped.
It is unjust. Voting on it won't make it just. And there is no contract. I will be taxed on a transaction whether or not I agree to it.

After several moments googling a subject I know very little about, it seems that:

"salaries, wages, commissions, and bonuses you have paid to the employees of your small business are tax-deductible expenses if they are deemed to be: Ordinary and necessary, and reasonable in amount."

If a company unilaterally decided to raise the minimum wage of its employees - maybe that wouldn't be deemed ordinary, necessary and reasonable in amount. But if government did so, it is by legal definition ordinary, necessary and reasonable.

I do not voluntarily tax. I am taxed and if I refuse to pay I will be kidnapped. — Bartricks

That doesn't mean you somehow have a right not to be taxed.

so it's okay to mug me and to give the proceeds to the hungry person if there's been a vote on it?? What moral planet are you on? — Bartricks

Yes, because it's the least bad system. And we have to have a system, because there are lots of us in a small space.

Er, yes I do. That's kinda the point.

Er, yes I do. That's kinda the point. — Bartricks

"It's like mugging because it kinda looks like it if you ignore all context" is not a convincing argument to that effect though.

Question begging. It is not the 'best' system. It violates rights.

My system is better. Make the polluters pay. That is, make make parents pay. They have violated rights and owe their offspring a living and others protection from their offspring. That debt can rightfully be collected. Thus taxing parents so that they pay for the problems they have created is just. Taxing others is not - it is extracting money with menaces, and that's wrong unless the money is owed.

My system is better. Make the polluters pay. That is, make make parents pay. They have violated rights and owe their offspring a living and others protection from their offspring. That debt can rightfully be collected. Thus taxing parents so that they pay for the problems they have created is just. Taxing others is not - it is extracting money with menaces, and that's wrong unless the money is owed. — Bartricks

OK, so a dictatorship with these values. What if the dictator changes her mind?