The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The middle class are becoming the working class. Wealth is getting transferred from the hands of the many into the hands of the few. But how?
The simplest way of explaining it is to point out that there are toll booths all over the economy. The people who own those toll booths become rich by having everyone else fork over their hard earned cash. You don't need to do any work to own a toll booth, so you can just kick back and watch the money roll right in.
Do you breathe air? There's a strong chance that you do, and there's also a chance that some polluter dumped carbon dioxide or some other emissions into your atmosphere. The atmosphere is a toll booth that belongs to everyone, rich and poor, but the rich get away with not having to pay your tolls. They're like the car in this video:
Would A UBI Solve This?
If everyone were to suddenly have more money in their pockets, the people who own the toll booths would see dollar signs and increase their tolls. The toll booth owners would benefit and no one else would. Inequality growth would be accelerated.
However, there is a solution to this...
Taxing the toll booths is the only way that people would benefit from receiving a UBI. However, if you were to actually go ahead and do this, then everyone would become so much more prosperous that they wouldn't have any need of a UBI.
Of course, people would still want a UBI, anyway. I only say that because 99% of the people I've heard advocating for a UBI are already comfortably employed and want to muscle in on welfare.
Everywhere we look there's open hands trying to take, take, take. I love how you put it. Tolls are all over the place. The main arguments I've heard against UBI is "How will everyone get paid" and " Everyone will become lazy and not want to do anything."
A government will move heaven and Earth to get weapons during wartime but won't lift a finger to entertain UBI. SMDH.
What is your take on those arguments against UBI?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Paying for a UBI is the easy part. What most people (including economists) aren't aware of is that new money is created every time the Federal Government spends. That money is then destroyed when it returns to the Government through taxes, fines, license fees, etc.
They can create as much money as they want, but they really ought to limit themselves to only creating enough so that everything that's for sale can be bought at current prices. If they create too much money, then prices will go up and you could have hyper-inflation.
I don't know what the figure is in the US, but in Australia, the Government could give everyone $3-3.5K without having to increase taxes. If they were to give more than that, they'd have to increase taxation. When I say that to UBI advocates, they complain that $3.5K isn't enough to help anyone. When I point out that jobs could be created for every unemployed person at ten times that amount instead of going for a UBI, they still want the UBI.
Would everyone become lazy and do nothing? Absolutely not! The money would be sucked up by toll collectors before they had a chance to relax. They'd have no choice but to keep working to earn more money which will also be sucked up.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
So what programs do you pland to cut to fund UBI? You are going to tell a 65 year old couple that have paid ss their whole life that ss has been cute so we can give 3 grand a year to every 20 & 30 year old in the country?
The more money you let the gov have control of the more opportunities for corruption. Individual prosperity comes from having a job. Government handouts breed dependence. Jobs give individuals independence.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I'm with you on the first paragraph of what you said, @toddxox. The idea of taking money away from pensioners just so people who are already living comfortably can get some extra pocket money is as backward a solution as one could imagine.
As for giving the government more control over money, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that they already have control over money, but they're using the system incorrectly. I completely agree that jobs give individuals more independence, which is better for their mental health and good for society. However, the government creates the conditions whereby unemployment is inevitable because of over taxation and/or under spending - there just isn't enough money circulating around the real economy to create jobs for everyone and that is a matter of policy! Economists want to have a buffer to guard against unwanted levels of inflation, which is why they deliberately create these conditions.
We are not living beyond our means right now. We're living well below our means.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit