Universal Basic Income is not Socialism

[Marblehead]

A recent survey of Democratic voters resulting in the conclusion that a majority favor Socialism over Capitalism.

 

Of course they would.  Probably 50% of them are on some form of Welfare.  Socialism would give them even more money for being too lazy to work.

 

[rideforever]

What do the rich do with their money ?
Do they do anything good ?
No, not really.   Mostly they sit on it, buy large mansions and Ukrainian blondes.
Drink expensive booze.
Some give to "chairty", at banquets wearing fur coats.

So .... this has a lot of implications.
Law and order is kept as covenant by citizens, and they expect some decency ins society in return.
Is there any ?

 

Why does "God" allow inequality ?
Why doesn't everyone have everything he wants ?

One of the reasons might be because there isn't enough material.
And to get everyone out, some must have more, and they must use that excess to captain the ship and take everyone home.
But they are not doing that.

UBI is not really our problem.

If things continue as they are, i n 50 years mankind will be slime creatures.

 

Of course the answer and the correct to take is obvious.
 

 

[Marblehead]

Well, just for argument's sake, it was failed socialism (Communism) that caused the fall of the USSR.

 

It was Socialism (Communism) that prevented China from becoming a world power sooner than it did.

 

It was Capitalism that allowed the USA to become the most powerful nation on the planet.

 

It is Socialism (Welfare) that is the biggest cause of the USA falling behind China as an economic power.

 

 

[Lost in Translation]

It's not about whether a rich person needs all his money or about whether a poor person needs help.

 

It IS about whether it is right for the government to steal from one person to give to another person.

 

UBI is morally indefensible since it requires that a portion of the population pay in perpetuity to the remainder of the population, regardless of that remainder's capacity to work for a living. It is a metaphorical and literal drain on society. It sucks the lifeblood out of society by incentivising  part of the population to do less and thus remain dependent upon the government while simultaneously burdening the remainder of the population with greater taxes. And all the while is sets up the class struggle between the "haves" and the "have-nots," encouraging each side to resent the other.

 

It is evil.

 

 

[Cheshire Cat]

You may even say that "Universal Basic Income" is the terrestrial and material manifestation of the love of God for his creatures. None cares.

 

The rich guys have the choice to leave your country and do business elsewhere (i.e. Singapore, Quatar ...). The middle class is left to pay for a really heavy form of socialist state, but its contribution is not enough: the State becomes heavy even for those who have very little.

 

You want your country to be competitive. You want to live in a country that attracts money.

 

 

 

[Zork]

UBI could be a good or bad idea depending on how it is implemented.

If you manage to somehow redistribute the money gained by billionaires to the poorest strata of society, it could work. If you don't it will fail eventually because it will increase the dependence of the government on taxes imposed on the middle class.

 

There must also be an incentive to make people depending on the UBI to reintegrate themselves back to the workforce.

What they do here is simple. You must be unemployed and actively looking for a job to ask for UBI. You ask the employment office to find a job (any job). If you refuse the job when they find you one, the UBI gets cut. I am not saying it's perfect but it kinda works.

Basically it works as a safety net for the population that is near destitute.

Look at this another way: what do you do with people with severe mental retardation that can't work?

[Cheshire Cat]

48 minutes ago, Zork said:

UBI could be a good or bad idea depending on how it is implemented.

If you manage to somehow redistribute the money gained by billionaires to the poorest strata of society, it could work. 

 

Billionaires just leave. 

[Zork]

33 minutes ago, Cheshire Cat said:

 

Billionaires just leave. 

Genuinely curious: which part of "if" didn't you get?

I didn't say it's easy.

[Cheshire Cat]

29 minutes ago, Zork said:

Genuinely curious: which part of "if" didn't you get?

I didn't say it's easy.

 

I'm pointing out that it's not possible. Period.

How do you prevent people from leaving? Coercion?

Even if you push your socialist idea to the level of a totalitarian regime, billionaires will always have the option of buying their way out.

 

Adolf Hitler with his national-socialist party faced a similar problem when he needed jewish money.

Edited August 15, 2018 by Cheshire Cat

[ralis]

On 8/14/2018 at 8:53 AM, Marblehead said:

Well, just for argument's sake, it was failed socialism (Communism) that caused the fall of the USSR.

 

It was Socialism (Communism) that prevented China from becoming a world power sooner than it did.

 

It was Capitalism that allowed the USA to become the most powerful nation on the planet.

 

It is Socialism (Welfare) that is the biggest cause of the USA falling behind China as an economic power.

 

 

 

Socialism is not communism! 

[Kar3n]

2 hours ago, ralis said:

 

Socialism is not communism! 

No, but socialism is a gateway to communism. 

[ralis]

47 minutes ago, Kar3n said:

No, but socialism is a gateway to communism. 

 

Prove your statement with factual historical references. 

[Zork]

7 hours ago, Cheshire Cat said:

 

I'm pointing out that it's not possible. Period.

How do you prevent people from leaving? Coercion?

Even if you push your socialist idea to the level of a totalitarian regime, billionaires will always have the option of buying their way out.

 

Adolf Hitler with his national-socialist party faced a similar problem when he needed jewish money.

That's  a strawman right there.

 

You still haven't answered what you believe the weakest members of your society who have no other choice should do.

Ironically not providing them a safety net in the form of money is what Hitler did in Germany.

Edited August 16, 2018 by Zork

[Zork]

Also for the non economic minded it looks that the government is spending money when in reality it is increasing GDP indirectly by increasing consumption (and taxes through VAT etc).

[Cheshire Cat]

50 minutes ago, Zork said:

That's  a strawman right there.

 

You still haven't answered what you believe the weakest members of your society who have no other choice should do.

Ironically not providing them a safety net in the form of money is what Hitler did in Germany.

 

The weakest members of our society should be given opportunities. 

The opportunity to get a job easily and the opportunity to run their own business. 

 

Imagine to have a job in a country where you get paid € 1800, and to pay you 1800 they have to pay taxes for additional €1200 to the socialist state. And then you have to pay an additional €500 from €1800. You're left with 1300.

 

Imagine to live in a socialist country. You have a business idea and you decide to run your own business for one year. 

You don't know for sure if it will work: you may even have 0 customers. The socialist state doesn't care: you've got to pay € 10000 in taxes, even if you can't make a single penny from your business. 

 

This is just an example of a socialist state destroying opportunities. 

 

As for the Nazis... 

The Nazi social welfare provisions included old age insurance, rent supplements, unemployment and disability benefits, old-age homes, interest-free loans for married couples, along with healthcare insurance, which was not decreed mandatory until 1941.[6] One of the NSV branches, the Office of Institutional and Special Welfare, was responsible “for travellers’ aid at railway stations; relief for ex-convicts; ‘support’ for re-migrants from abroad; assistance for the physically disabled, hard-of-hearing, deaf, mute, and blind; relief for the elderly, homeless and alcoholics; and the fight against illicit drugs and epidemics.”[7] The Office of Youth Relief, which had 30,000 branch offices by 1941, took the job of supervising “social workers, corrective training, mediation assistance,” and dealing with judicial authorities to prevent juvenile delinquency.

Edited August 16, 2018 by Cheshire Cat

[Zork]

1 hour ago, Cheshire Cat said:

The weakest members of our society should be given opportunities. 

The opportunity to get a job easily and the opportunity to run their own business. 

Thats socialism right there. I rest my case.

 

The examples are from communist countries. You just prove that most people don't know wtf they are talking about when mentioning socialism.

 

It also occurred to me that you are asking the wrong questions.

It doesn't matter if UBI is socialist or not.  You should be asking yourselves what UBI is trying to achieve, what are the alternatives, the cost/benefit ratio and the side effects on the economy.

[Zork]

2 hours ago, Cheshire Cat said:

As for the Nazis... 

The Nazi social welfare provisions included old age insurance, rent supplements, unemployment and disability benefits, old-age homes, interest-free loans for married couples, along with healthcare insurance, which was not decreed mandatory until 1941.[6] One of the NSV branches, the Office of Institutional and Special Welfare, was responsible “for travellers’ aid at railway stations; relief for ex-convicts; ‘support’ for re-migrants from abroad; assistance for the physically disabled, hard-of-hearing, deaf, mute, and blind; relief for the elderly, homeless and alcoholics; and the fight against illicit drugs and epidemics.”[7] The Office of Youth Relief, which had 30,000 branch offices by 1941, took the job of supervising “social workers, corrective training, mediation assistance,” and dealing with judicial authorities to prevent juvenile delinquency.

This is nonsense.

Aktion T4

Google it.

[Cheshire Cat]

1 hour ago, Zork said:

Thats socialism right there. I rest my case.

 

No.

Socialism is when the State is given the job to ensure that everyone has equal opportunities and equal means, and -if we're talking about modern socialism- it doesn't matter if you're a citizen. Do you need an operation (surgery) that costs $ 200'000 in your country? You can just come visit my country without documents as a refugee and we'll pay that for you.

 

 

Quote

 

The examples are from communist countries. You just prove that most people don't know wtf they are talking about when mentioning socialism.

 

Actually, my example was too good: reality is worse.

 

In Italy, it costs you € 2'430 to hire an employee that gets paid € 1'236. TOTAL TAXES PAID : €1'194. And there's no UBI in Italy, although they're planning it.

Then, if the employee plans to buy stuff with his money, he's supposed to pay an additional 22% with indirect taxation ( additional € 271 paid). And there's more to pay.

Is Italy a communist country? No, but those who have money just leave!

 

And you just prove media brainwashing.

 

 

Quote

 

It also occurred to me that you are asking the wrong questions.

It doesn't matter if UBI is socialist or not.  You should be asking yourselves what UBI is trying to achieve, what are the alternatives, the cost/benefit ratio and the side effects on the economy.

 

Billionaires just leave.

How do you prevent this from happening?

 

 

56 minutes ago, Zork said:

This is nonsense.

Aktion T4

Google it.

 

Eugenetics? Was that a purely German phenomenon before WW2?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States

 

"Beginning with Connecticut in 1896, many states enacted marriage laws with eugenic criteria, prohibiting anyone who was "epileptic, imbecile or feeble-minded"[35] from marrying."

 

"The first state to introduce a compulsory sterilization bill was Michigan, in 1897 but the proposed law failed to garner enough votes by legislators to be adopted. Eight years later Pennsylvania's state legislators passed a sterilization bill that was vetoed by the governor. Indiana became the first state to enact sterilization legislation in 1907,[37] followed closely by Washington and California in 1909. Sterilization rates across the country were relatively low (California being the sole exception) until the 1927 Supreme Court case Buck v. Bell which legitimized the forced sterilization of patients at a Virginia home for the mentally retarded. The number of sterilizations performed per year increased until another Supreme Court case, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 1942, complicated the legal situation by ruling against sterilization of criminals if the equal protection clause of the constitution was violated. That is, if sterilization was to be performed, then it could not exempt white-collar criminals.[38] The state of California was at the vanguard of the American eugenics movement, performing about 20,000 sterilizations or one third of the 60,000 nationwide from 1909 up until the 1960s.[39]"

 

"

In the 1930s, there was a wave of portrayals of eugenic "mercy killings" in American film, newspapers, and magazines. In 1931, the Illinois Homeopathic Medicine Association began lobbying for the right to euthanize "imbeciles" and other defectives.[72] The Euthanasia Society of America was founded in 1938.[73]

Overall, however, euthanasia was marginalized in the U.S., motivating people to turn to forced segregation and sterilization programs as a means for keeping the "unfit" from reproducing.[7]"

 

Edited August 16, 2018 by Cheshire Cat

[Zork]

21 minutes ago, Cheshire Cat said:

No

Yes.

In capitalism you aren't guaranteed access to the market. That's why you have unemployment.

22 minutes ago, Cheshire Cat said:

 

And you just prove media brainwashing.

That goes both ways. You aren't mentioning what makes it bad by itself nor making cost/benefits analysis. It's just your opinion. I don't give a bleep about your opinion. Give me some facts about it's applications and we will talk.

 

24 minutes ago, Cheshire Cat said:

Billionaires just leave.

How do you prevent this from happening?

Again this is the wrong question and it can be applied to any social programs. You should be asking yourself what the gain is.

 

26 minutes ago, Cheshire Cat said:

Eugenetics? Was that a purely German phenomenon before WW2?

You are diverting the thread. You mentioned Nazis. I pointed out that the example was a strawman because it is not what you claim to be and you keep reverting to strawmen examples.

[Cheshire Cat]

7 minutes ago, Zork said:

Yes.

In capitalism you aren't guaranteed access to the market. That's why you have unemployment.

 

Not really.

 

7 minutes ago, Zork said:

That goes both ways. You aren't mentioning what makes it bad by itself nor making cost/benefits analysis. It's just your opinion. I don't give a bleep about your opinion. Give me some facts about it's applications and we will talk.

 

Zork Logic

Zork :"We need to cut a testicle to every married man"

Cat : "hey Zork, I think that people will just leave your country"

Zork: "You aren't mentioning what makes it bad by itself nor making cost/benefits analysis. It's just your opinion. I don't give a bleep about your opinion. Give me some facts about it's applications and we will talk."

 

 

 

 

[Marblehead]

11 hours ago, ralis said:

 

Socialism is not communism! 

I know.  But they are first cousins.

 

[Zork]

3 minutes ago, Cheshire Cat said:

 

Not really.

 

 

Zork Logic

Zork :"We need to cut a testicle to every married man"

Cat : "hey Zork, I think that people will just leave your country"

Zork: "You aren't mentioning what makes it bad by itself nor making cost/benefits analysis. It's just your opinion. I don't give a bleep about your opinion. Give me some facts about it's applications and we will talk."

 

 

 

 

More strawmen.  no proof. What you are saying isn't worth mentioning because it will apply to any case of social policy. The state is there to ensure that they pay their taxes. Your problem is that your state can't enforce laws not whether the UBI with which you have no experience whatsoever is bad or not.

Edited August 16, 2018 by Zork

[Marblehead]

3 hours ago, Cheshire Cat said:

The weakest members of our society should be given opportunities. 

The opportunity to get a job easily and the opportunity to run their own business. 

I have to say "Amen!" to this.

 

And then we can make a choice.  Work, beg, or be a criminal.

 

 

 

[rideforever]

No Such Thing As Society

 

The current society does not have a capitalist free market.   The media (or culture) is perverting people's minds, twisting them.   It is no longer about making cars or something like that.   The fabric of society itself, the legal system, institutions, academia, has become the new ground of warfare.   Nobody cars about cars now.    They fight at a different level, were far more damage can be done.

 

Society is just competing levels of fakeness and insincerity, often it is a competition to see who can be more of an ahole than previously.   Corporations are legal persons with no heart, and they are created by cunning men to destroy and plunder even faster.

 

All these ideas about Capitalism and Socialism are history, they do not seem relevant.

 

It is more about whether you live as a c***, or try to be a free being somehow, whether you remember what hope is.

 

The organism is used a stimulus response slave, and the soul is systematically destroyed, not even destroyed but perverted, until all that is a left is a soulless hungry ghost.   Some creatures are feeding off this planet.
 

 

[Aetherous]

 

On 8/14/2018 at 11:05 AM, Lost in Translation said:

UBI is morally indefensible since it requires that a portion of the population pay in perpetuity to the remainder of the population

 

It doesn't necessarily take from anyone. This was discussed earlier in the thread.

If a certain plan for its implementation does depend on taking from others, then I think you have a point...at least about that plan, but not about the concept of UBI.