> It will foster the arts in ways we can not even imagine.
> If you believe in a personal project you will commit to it no matter what and you wont risk bankrupcy (sic).
Neither of those two statements are true. Much great previous art was sponsored by merchants and commissions, artists had to work for their money.
Also, if you have a personal project that you believe in and are dependent on for food, you will commit to it no matter what. If you aren't risking bankruptcy/financial insolvency it's much easier to bail on an idea.
> No more parents carrying with their sons until a good job comes.
What does this even mean?
> And many, many more...
What are the "more"? Hopefully they're somewhat different than the points you've already brought up.
The art now is created by the people who can afford to create it because they know they are getting paid. How many poets do you know that in recent times are getting paid for poetry?
Jazz artists barely survive if you don't count Woody Allen.
Personal projects like freelancing can put your home at risk.
At least in Spain, people until their 30s live in the parents home because they cant get a decent job in many cases.
All the examples I've given are based in my personal experience, maybe yours is different.
> The art now is created by the people who can afford to create it because they know they are getting paid.
True, but not in the sense you mean. Certain arts die off and certain ones flourish. There is tons more digital art and computer animation, and less poetry and jazz artists. Why are you preferring one over another? Both are equally valid, except digital art and computer animation you can make a living off of.
> Personal projects like freelancing can put your home at risk.
How exactly is that? You might have to still work a job for stable income. Read Stephen King's "On Writing". He says that the idea that a creative person needs large chunks of uninterrupted time is ridiculous. If you really want to do something, you'll make time to do it.
> At least in Spain, people until their 30s live in the parents home because they cant get a decent job in many cases.
Why is that a problem? The idea of moving out at an early age has arisen with the baby boom generation. It's quite a recent phenomenon. In asia, you're not expected to move out until you get married and have a family. What's your point?
My problem with UBI is that nobody has convinced me that there's a reasonable way to pay for it. I mean, personally, I hold that taxation is theft, so anything that starts with 'taxes' as the answer is automatically flawed. BUT, even if you allow for taxation, it isn't clear how trying to do this via taxation will avoid simply creating a house of cards that can't stand.
That is, if you raise, say, corporate taxes to pay for UBI, then what's to stop those corporations from simply raising prices to maintain their margins? This will just push the costs down to the same people you're trying to support with the UBI in the first place.
Don't get me wrong... I like the idea of UBI. Hey, free money, sign me up. But I have serious doubts about every implementation model I've seen suggested yet (where the proponents have even bothered offering any details, as opposed to just hand-waving way the question of how to fund the UBI).
7 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 28.0 ms ] thread- It will foster the arts in ways we can not even imagine.
- If you believe in a personal project you will commit to it no matter what and you wont risk bankrupcy.
- No more parents carrying with their sons until a good job comes.
And many, many more...
> If you believe in a personal project you will commit to it no matter what and you wont risk bankrupcy (sic).
Neither of those two statements are true. Much great previous art was sponsored by merchants and commissions, artists had to work for their money.
Also, if you have a personal project that you believe in and are dependent on for food, you will commit to it no matter what. If you aren't risking bankruptcy/financial insolvency it's much easier to bail on an idea.
> No more parents carrying with their sons until a good job comes.
What does this even mean?
> And many, many more...
What are the "more"? Hopefully they're somewhat different than the points you've already brought up.
All the examples I've given are based in my personal experience, maybe yours is different.
True, but not in the sense you mean. Certain arts die off and certain ones flourish. There is tons more digital art and computer animation, and less poetry and jazz artists. Why are you preferring one over another? Both are equally valid, except digital art and computer animation you can make a living off of.
> Personal projects like freelancing can put your home at risk.
How exactly is that? You might have to still work a job for stable income. Read Stephen King's "On Writing". He says that the idea that a creative person needs large chunks of uninterrupted time is ridiculous. If you really want to do something, you'll make time to do it.
> At least in Spain, people until their 30s live in the parents home because they cant get a decent job in many cases.
Why is that a problem? The idea of moving out at an early age has arisen with the baby boom generation. It's quite a recent phenomenon. In asia, you're not expected to move out until you get married and have a family. What's your point?
https://assets.weforum.org/editor/tWV3bYiI6y5mfQRRFmy-Zz_sfd...
That is, if you raise, say, corporate taxes to pay for UBI, then what's to stop those corporations from simply raising prices to maintain their margins? This will just push the costs down to the same people you're trying to support with the UBI in the first place.
Don't get me wrong... I like the idea of UBI. Hey, free money, sign me up. But I have serious doubts about every implementation model I've seen suggested yet (where the proponents have even bothered offering any details, as opposed to just hand-waving way the question of how to fund the UBI).
http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2015/03/the-amazing-rise-and-f...