Universal basic income

[D.P.]

You refusing to engage is not the same as me not giving you a reply.

I am engage, you are simply unwilling to comprehend.


Your argument is entirely flawed, and goes along the same lines as tax if theft. this is proven wrong endlessly in courts of law. there is a huge preexisting literature on why this is a fundamental misunderstanding.


You think when you get paid that it is all your money, and the government are then taking a cut. This sounds nice and all but is not actually what happens. You work, your employer pays the state, the state decides how much to pass on to you. They could eaisly pass on a fixed amount, equal to everyone.

 

[D.P.]

I'm not sure what the benefit of such a system would be? You're adding on even more costs and in the case of disability benefits they can be quite specific things, you don't need to give everyone a free car via mobility payments etc... so why would that equivalent amount be thrown into UBI?

This is partly the reason why UBI has not been widely taken up.

There is scope for limited simplificatios of the welfare and the efficiency gains form that, but the details would matter enormously. There is the removal of benefits trap, so productivity should increase and bnefits fraud reduces. Social factors all tend to improve under a UBI.

 

[Dolph]

Because wealth is not a part of who a person is, wealth is what the rest of the society allows you to own. If the principle of equal treatment under the law was 100% enforced through the tax system then all the wealth of a country should be redistributed equally to everyone.

No, the state doesn't allow you to own in the same way as it doesn't allow you to live.

The state restricts rights, it doesn't grant them.

I am not granted the right not to be in prison, the state removes my freedom.

I am not granted the right to freedom of speech, the state restricts it.

I am not granted the right to own property, it is taken from me.

 

[AHarvey]

I'm a big believer in that we should be watching what other countries are doing and trialing, seeing what works and what doesn't, then look at bringing it into the UK.

 

[Hagar]

You think when you get paid that it is all your money, and the government are then taking a cut. This sounds nice and all but is not actually what happens. You work, your employer pays the state, the state decides how much to pass on to you. They could eaisly pass on a fixed amount, equal to everyone.

No, you work for an employer for an agreed amount. It is your contract with your employer, gross pay and benefits etc. The government allows you to earn an amount tax free. It is your contract with the government to pay them tax at fixed rates above that allowance, the employer on your behalf calculates and deducts tax and pays it to the state. PAYE, pay as you earn. If the tax is not paid, it is you, not the employer who would be liable in most circumstances.

 

[Zethor]

No, the state doesn't allow you to own in the same way as it doesn't allow you to live.

The state restricts rights, it doesn't grant them.

I am not granted the right not to be in prison, the state removes my freedom.

I am not granted the right to freedom of speech, the state restricts it.

I am not granted the right to own property, it is taken from me.

You are wrong because you don't understand what the state is and what it does. A state is a social contract which everyone signs at birth and which, among other things, grants all your rights.

Everything you mentioned was given to you through this social contract: properties, the freedom of speech or movement and yes, even your life because it allowed your parents to meet, it allowed your mother to safely give birth to you, it financed your growth and education etc.

 

[Dolph]

You are wrong because you don't understand what the state is and what it does. A state is a social contract which everyone signs at birth and which, among other things, grants all your rights.

Everything you mentioned was given to you through this social contract: properties, the freedom of speech or movement and yes, even your life because it allowed your parents to meet, it allowed your mother to safely give birth to you, it financed your growth and education etc.

You can't consent to a de facto association, and you certainly can't consent at birth.

The state is the holder of the monopoly on legitimate use of force. That doesn't mean every use or threat of force from the state is automatically legitimate, especially if applied inconsistently or arbitrarily.

 

[aardvark]

You are wrong because you don't understand what the state is and what it does. A state is a social contract which everyone signs at birth and which, among other things, grants all your rights.

Everything you mentioned was given to you through this social contract: properties, the freedom of speech or movement and yes, even your life because it allowed your parents to meet, it allowed your mother to safely give birth to you, it financed your growth and education etc.

nonsense

 

[Tuppy_Glossop]

We are all party to a contract that we don't know about, haven't seen, and haven't signed? Hmm...

 

[Dolph]

I am engage, you are simply unwilling to comprehend.

Your argument is entirely flawed, and goes along the same lines as tax if theft. this is proven wrong endlessly in courts of law. there is a huge preexisting literature on why this is a fundamental misunderstanding.

The US supreme court supported segregation several times, an appeal to legality isn't a good argument when dealing with state abuses ofnrights.

You think when you get paid that it is all your money, and the government are then taking a cut. This sounds nice and all but is not actually what happens. You work, your employer pays the state, the state decides how much to pass on to you. They could eaisly pass on a fixed amount, equal to everyone.

More nonsense, even paye does not work this way, let alone self employment or contracting.

If your argument relies on lies, it doesn't bode well.

 

[Caracus2k]

Because wealth is not a part of who a person is, wealth is what the rest of the society allows you to own. If the principle of equal treatment under the law was 100% enforced through the tax system then all the wealth of a country should be redistributed equally to everyone.

Ladies and gentlemen exhibit A) in the case against marxism...

An individual is only allowed what the 'people' /state says they can have nothing more.....

..... And 'equal' treatment under the law means the state ensuring everyone has exactly the same amont of stuff regardless of an individuals work ethic, ingenuity or skill

What a nightmarish country we would have if we followed such principles....

At the risk of sounding boringly repetitive.... Adherents of Marxism imagine that they are the fairer, more just group for advocating for collective ownership of property.....

There are not.....

they beleive in a demonstrably immoral corrosive proposition... that the fruits of anyone's labour do not belong to them to any meaningful degree and are there to be taken by the 'people' /state with the inevitable requirement that this will require a violent totalitarian state ripe for even further subversion by some of humanities worst sociopaths, murderers and rapists.

Nothing in my post should be read to mean that I don't think we need states to run a successful society or that taxation is not a legitimate way for states to finance public spending.

 

[Tuppy_Glossop]

Surely any taxation scheme where higher earners pay a higher percentage discourages, to some degree, the drive to earn more.

 

[Caracus2k]

Surely any taxation scheme where higher earners pay a higher percentage discourages, to some degree, the drive to earn more.

To a certain degree it all depends on the rates as to how much


My salary is such that by taking on additional work I tip over a tax threshold.... Doesn't particularly disincentive me from taking in the extra work targets current rates

 

[Energize]

Because wealth is not a part of who a person is, wealth is what the rest of the society allows you to own. If the principle of equal treatment under the law was 100% enforced through the tax system then all the wealth of a country should be redistributed equally to everyone.

Communism, no thanks.

 

[D.P.]

Communism, no thanks.

Then accept the current system of progressive tax bands

 

[D.P.]

Surely any taxation scheme where higher earners pay a higher percentage discourages, to some degree, the drive to earn more.

Of you have large step changes in tax rates it can, which is why it is better to have more tax bands and a smoother.more continuous tax rate function. When people jump from 20 to 59 tax bands through a pay raise it can be very disappointing. If someone is at the 40% threshold and has the yoption to work overtime the large marginal tax rate change makes this less appealing. If the tax rate simply changed from 31% to 33% turn you likely wouldn't know or care and thus you are more likely to be more productive and things like annual bonuses wont appear to suddenly vanish in to the ether as

 

[Zethor]

You can't consent to a de facto association, and you certainly can't consent at birth.

The state is the holder of the monopoly on legitimate use of force. That doesn't mean every use or threat of force from the state is automatically legitimate, especially if applied inconsistently or arbitrarily.

There's no need to repeat that you believe progressive taxation is inconsistent and arbitrary, that's just, like, your opinion, man and there's nothing wrong with having an opinion. However, using the principle of equality under the law to support this particular opinion is wrong and I've explained why.

Ladies and gentlemen exhibit A) in the case against marxism...

An individual is only allowed what the 'people' /state says they can have nothing more.....

..... And 'equal' treatment under the law means the state ensuring everyone has exactly the same amont of stuff regardless of an individuals work ethic, ingenuity or skill

What a nightmarish country we would have if we followed such principles....

At the risk of sounding boringly repetitive.... Adherents of Marxism imagine that they are the fairer, more just group for advocating for collective ownership of property.....

There are not.....

they beleive in a demonstrably immoral corrosive proposition... that the fruits of anyone's labour do not belong to them to any meaningful degree and are there to be taken by the 'people' /state with the inevitable requirement that this will require a violent totalitarian state ripe for even further subversion by some of humanities worst sociopaths, murderers and rapists.

Nothing in my post should be read to mean that I don't think we need states to run a successful society or that taxation is not a legitimate way for states to finance public spending.

Communism, no thanks.

Read what I've said and try again.

 

[D.P.]

The US supreme court supported segregation several times, an appeal to legality isn't a good argument when dealing with state abuses ofnrights.



More nonsense, even paye does not work this way, let alone self employment or contracting.

If your argument relies on lies, it doesn't bode well.

While not a literal example of how the tax system runs, it is a better explanation of why taxation is not theft and progressive tax rates are not only perfectly legal but entirely morally acceptable if you have already accepted people get paid differently for working the same hours.

Yes, a legal right does not hurt after moral rights for the former in general follows societies morals. In this case this is what happens, around 80% of people think it is fair and just that people that earn more have a higher tax rate.

 

[D.P.]

There's no need to repeat that you believe progressive taxation is inconsistent and arbitrary, that's just, like, your opinion, man and there's nothing wrong with having an opinion. However, using the principle of equality under the law to support this particular opinion is wrong and I've explained why.






Read what I've said and try again.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c

The thing is, Dolph's objections to progressive taxation is very common, and thus frequently discussed by philosophers and economist's. Time and Time again it is shown clearly that tax is not theft and the state can tax at arbitrary levels based on income.

Pre-tax income is basically a worthless figure, you only own the post-tax number. I wonder if we should really move to a system that is taxed at source, and salaries and such like are.advertised as net. Then people won't see pre and post tax figures and will be less likely to complain with idiotic reason why they tried to avoid or evade. In Switzerland unless you are a citizen or permanent resident you get taxed at source. A chunk gets removed from reach paycheck and there isn't didly square you can do about it, to the degree that many jobs seeking foreigners will list net salary and not gross. I've seen jobs in Germany advertised this way as wellE.g you will get 3000euro net each month.

It is like in Europe we list prices in shops with VaT included as there is no way to not pay VAT,while in yeh US they don't show sales tax as they like to highlight what the states takes.

The reality is you should not give a damn. If you earn more gross then you earn more net, and the only reason you are paying relatively more taxes than someone else is because you can afford it, which is all the reason in the world to justify progressive taxes.


why they tried to avoid.

 

[Angilion]

Ladies and gentlemen exhibit A) in the case against marxism...

An individual is only allowed what the 'people' /state says they can have nothing more.....

..... And 'equal' treatment under the law means the state ensuring everyone has exactly the same amont of stuff regardless of an individuals work ethic, ingenuity or skill

What a nightmarish country we would have if we followed such principles....

At the risk of sounding boringly repetitive.... Adherents of Marxism imagine that they are the fairer, more just group for advocating for collective ownership of property.....

There are not.....

they beleive in a demonstrably immoral corrosive proposition... that the fruits of anyone's labour do not belong to them to any meaningful degree and are there to be taken by the 'people' /state with the inevitable requirement that this will require a violent totalitarian state ripe for even further subversion by some of humanities worst sociopaths, murderers and rapists.

Nothing in my post should be read to mean that I don't think we need states to run a successful society or that taxation is not a legitimate way for states to finance public spending.

Yes, it should. The person you're replying to was talking about a state. Not any particularly type of state, just a state in general. They didn't even mention marxism - it was you who equated "state" with "marxism". You spoke very passionately against them, so you were speaking very passionately against a state.

It is always the case that an individual is only allowed what others allow them, regardless of the political and social situation. You may like to imagine yourself as the sole invincible ruler and thus the only person who decides what they are allowed to have, but it's very unlikely that you would be that person and even "invincible" rulers are sometimes overthrown and replaced, conquered by a ruler of somewhere else or fade away as their territory fails for a variety of reasons. Also, even they still don't have complete freedom to decide what they have because they will need the support of some other people who they will have to provide with wealth and other forms of power.

The fruits of anyone's labour belong to them only to the degree that more powerful people allow them to. As the sole ruler, for example, you would take whatever you wanted from your peasants as tribute - their labour would provide you directly with food, clothing, goods, money if you used it in your territory...everything, in fact.

How much stuff anyone has depends solely on what more powerful people allow them to have. It rarely has much to do with work ethic, ingenuity or skill. People who do gain a lot of wealth/power without having it to begin with get a lot of attention precisely because they are so rare. In general, there is limited social mobility and what social mobility does exist does so mainly because of the existence of a state, which you oppose so vehemently.

On to your triumphirate of evil-doers - the worst sociopaths, murderers and rapists...

The worst sociopaths flourish in capitalism because it is a sociopathic ideology. Sociopathic traits are more common in people at higher levels in businesses because they find it easy to care about the wealth/power of the organisation and to not care (because they can't) about the people in it. That's the point of capitalism - to concentrate wealth/power in the hands of the elite, the rulers, the organisation. Which is pretty much the same as any power-orientated ideology, including but by no means limited to marxism in practice. Capitalism does at least have the integrity to be more honest about its innate sociopathy, so I'll give you that.

Murderers flourish when the state is weakest. So your approach would benefit murderers, although of course it wouldn't be called murder then because it's only called murder when there's a state to officially disapprove of the killing. I don't think that's what you meant, though. If a few people have lots of stuff, most people have extremely llittle stuff (so that the elite can have as much wealth/power as possible) and there is no state, there will be killings. Either the elite will kill people to maintain their wealth/power or some people will kill the elite to make themselves the elite, there will be a revolution in which many people are killed but eventually a less unbalanced state will be created or (very rarely) a state will be created to reduce the imbalance of wealth/power without any killing. Maybe. I'm not sure if that has ever happened in reality.

The same is generally true of rapists, for generally the same reasons.