The only question one should ask is where does the money come from. If it comes from thin air, fine. But they come from taxes. Government doesn't have any money, it takes someone else's money and gives them to other people.
If you want my money, convince me to give it to you. Don't think that simply because you can't come over and steal them from me yourself, but instead you send government agents to collect it, it makes it okay.
That's not a solution. That's still you wanting someone else to pay for what you consider to be a good idea. Make your own money and then give it to people for free, if you wish. But you have no moral right whatsoever to take money from other people yourself or through government.
> That's still you wanting someone else to pay for what you consider to be a good idea. Make your own money and then give it to people for free, if you wish.
Scenario: Simple tech company that makes web sites. 10 developers in, about 20 projects/month, ~2k/project (or more, just because the name of a company instead of a freelancer can raise the price), ~1000/month salary to each developer, (- 30k expenses) for the "boss".
Who is the moral one here? ;)
On a side note, we live in 2014 and still people buy the economy bubble, supporting the idea of "free economy" (which is not so free after all), while people are dying from poverty, or have no electricity. Seriously, can't you see where this whole situation is going?
And you talk about "morality"?
Think for an instant what would happen if anyone had a basic income. Just from the top of my head:
- purchasing power -> people _will_ buy stuff (because they're able to), money keeps moving
- access to health
And there, your precious capitalism is saved.
But I think that does not apply to a country that has people doing absolutely _nothing_, even if for a year it's a fact that their government is spying on them (or rather an individual organism that does not subject to law).
The record of history is absolutely crystal clear: only in countries that allowed relatively free trade the average citizen was able to escape the poverty. On the other hand, it is in those countries that decided to follow socialist ideas, average citizens were poorer than anywhere else.
If it comes from thin air, it's a tax on currency denominated assets. Typically a regressive tax - those with more wealth are more able to structure their holdings more carefully, so lose a smaller portion of the value.
Inflation isn't an act, in the way that taxation is. Inflation is basically a decrease in the value of money. This can certainly happen if the supply is increased, and that can certainly be due to printing of money, and that act is quite legitimately viewed as taxation. Supply can also increase due to other factors (increased velocity of money, for instance) and value can also decrease due to a decrease in demand. Calling, particularly, the last of these "taxation" seems very strange to me.
I'm not going to dive into the morality of these things, here. Any productive discussion is going to take way more time and attention than I have available.
Look at it from the cost effectiveness point of view. For instance, currently we have a problem with several thousands of children illegally crossing border into the US. To solve this, 4B$ has been requested. This amounts to a million per child, roughly. I could think of alternative proposals: e.g a voucher for 10k$ to the child's family, payable in a year if they demonstrate up-keeping the child: sending it to school, etc.
The 'guaranteed income' is much trickier than that, of course, but the question is still valid: can it compete on cost-effectiveness with the current system of Medicare/medicaid/SS/WIC/.....
9 comments
[ 0.26 ms ] story [ 25.4 ms ] threadIf you want my money, convince me to give it to you. Don't think that simply because you can't come over and steal them from me yourself, but instead you send government agents to collect it, it makes it okay.
Simple solution: raise the tax on the rich to 80% && cut the crap about tax avoidance => problem solved.
Scenario: Simple tech company that makes web sites. 10 developers in, about 20 projects/month, ~2k/project (or more, just because the name of a company instead of a freelancer can raise the price), ~1000/month salary to each developer, (- 30k expenses) for the "boss".
Who is the moral one here? ;)
On a side note, we live in 2014 and still people buy the economy bubble, supporting the idea of "free economy" (which is not so free after all), while people are dying from poverty, or have no electricity. Seriously, can't you see where this whole situation is going?
And you talk about "morality"?
Think for an instant what would happen if anyone had a basic income. Just from the top of my head: - purchasing power -> people _will_ buy stuff (because they're able to), money keeps moving - access to health
And there, your precious capitalism is saved.
But I think that does not apply to a country that has people doing absolutely _nothing_, even if for a year it's a fact that their government is spying on them (or rather an individual organism that does not subject to law).
I'm not going to dive into the morality of these things, here. Any productive discussion is going to take way more time and attention than I have available.
The 'guaranteed income' is much trickier than that, of course, but the question is still valid: can it compete on cost-effectiveness with the current system of Medicare/medicaid/SS/WIC/.....