Communism failed because...

...it was never properly implemented.
15
42%
...it's a totally flawed system.
21
58%
 
Total voters : 36

Postby MikeD on Mon 5/Jun/06 10:50pm

Where in God's name would any country get the money to have a UBI in the first place?

Especially considering that the UBI might also be a dis-incentive for those who don't care about material stuff all that much, but like a lot of free time (say, lots of us mountain bikers...the kind who ride a $3000 bike, drive a $200 car, and live in a rented closet space, or simply your average guy who wants to spend more time with his family, and less time at work) to work less but still scrape by. And then, in turn, produce less tax revenue.

To sum that up...how many people are going to create tax revenue above the value of the UBI they receive? I mean, a UBI is a LOT of money going to EVERYONE. I'm certainly no economist, but I don't see how this is going to work.

And if you make the UBI incrementally less the more you earn, you're going to have people attempting to find a balance between their entitlement and their earnings, trying to find the place where they get maximize the ratio of earning to working. People already do this with graduated income tax...

So now you've got everyone less inclined to work (also exacerbated by the fact that your theoretical 'moral' society doesn't care so much about material things in the first place) and everyone getting money from the government. How is this going to work? Not to mention you're creating a huge sense of entitlement, and some people, even with the UBI, are going to be out-of-work and need *additional* assistance.

Not to mention the absurdity of giving a professional who earns $150,000 a year an additional $20,000 for no real reason...nor the fact that he'll be taxed, say $75,000 in order to get back this $20,000....nor the fact that he's simply going to move to Austrialia, the UK, or the US and make his money there instead.

The government isn't here to run everyone's lives, nor to give anyone/everyone what he needs to live. It's here to provide ensure one person's individual freedoms don't begin to restrict another person's individual freedoms, to provide for the group those things that individuals can't provide for themselves (roads, infrastructure, public schools, hopefully some kind of health care), and to ensure that the economic situation remains, to use a horrible analogy, some kind of garden where you're free to grow. Some plants live, some plants die, some plants need a lot of help to survive....but most of all, someone needs to make sure one kind of plant doesn't become a weed and choke off every other kind of growth, which can happen in an unrestrained capitalist environment.

Sorry for being such an immoral, realistic fuckhead. Go cry into your Marx-Engels reader.

MD
MikeD
Member for: 14 years 11 months

Postby Chris_D on Mon 5/Jun/06 10:57pm

MikeD wrote:Sorry for being such an immoral, realistic fuckhead. Go cry into your Marx-Engels reader.


Realistic is the key word here. All you socialists feel free to move to Cuba. NZ is a better place without you.
Chris_D
Member for: 12 years 1 month

Postby Oli on Mon 5/Jun/06 11:01pm

Great rant, Mike. :)
Oli
User avatar
Member for: 12 years 4 months

Postby Scotty on Tue 6/Jun/06 6:07am

Chris_D wrote:
MikeD wrote:Sorry for being such an immoral, realistic fuckhead. Go cry into your Marx-Engels reader.


Realistic is the key word here. All you socialists feel free to move to Cuba. NZ is a better place without you.

Chris, feel free to move to Cuba. NZ is a better place without you.
Scotty
User avatar
Member for: 15 years 9 months

Postby purple_monkey_yellow_cat on Tue 6/Jun/06 9:54am

communism is so far left that its reaches the farest right,in theory it sounds ok but there will always need to be 1 person superior to make sure every thing is done which is pretty much the same as authoritarnism so its all bull shit.
purple_monkey_yellow_cat
Member for: 11 years 10 months

Postby CaptainCaveman on Tue 6/Jun/06 9:57am

purple_monkey_yellow_cat wrote: communism is so far left that its reaches the farest right,in theory it sounds ok but there will always need to be 1 person superior to make sure every thing is done which is pretty much the same as authoritarnism so its all bull shit.


Yea, but the Commies have better marching bands.
CaptainCaveman
Member for: 13 years 5 months

Postby Dougal on Tue 6/Jun/06 5:56pm

Panserborne wrote:I don't see any flaws.


That's because you're blinded by your own genius. Genius.
Dougal
Member for: 14 years 7 months

Postby Panserborne on Tue 6/Jun/06 6:35pm

MikeD wrote: Where in God's name would any country get the money to have a UBI in the first place?

Especially considering that the UBI might also be a dis-incentive for those who don't care about material stuff all that much, but like a lot of free time (say, lots of us mountain bikers...the kind who ride a $3000 bike, drive a $200 car, and live in a rented closet space, or simply your average guy who wants to spend more time with his family, and less time at work) to work less but still scrape by. And then, in turn, produce less tax revenue.

To sum that up...how many people are going to create tax revenue above the value of the UBI they receive? I mean, a UBI is a LOT of money going to EVERYONE. I'm certainly no economist, but I don't see how this is going to work.

And if you make the UBI incrementally less the more you earn, you're going to have people attempting to find a balance between their entitlement and their earnings, trying to find the place where they get maximize the ratio of earning to working. People already do this with graduated income tax...

So now you've got everyone less inclined to work (also exacerbated by the fact that your theoretical 'moral' society doesn't care so much about material things in the first place) and everyone getting money from the government. How is this going to work? Not to mention you're creating a huge sense of entitlement, and some people, even with the UBI, are going to be out-of-work and need *additional* assistance.

Not to mention the absurdity of giving a professional who earns $150,000 a year an additional $20,000 for no real reason...nor the fact that he'll be taxed, say $75,000 in order to get back this $20,000....nor the fact that he's simply going to move to Austrialia, the UK, or the US and make his money there instead.

The government isn't here to run everyone's lives, nor to give anyone/everyone what he needs to live. It's here to provide ensure one person's individual freedoms don't begin to restrict another person's individual freedoms, to provide for the group those things that individuals can't provide for themselves (roads, infrastructure, public schools, hopefully some kind of health care), and to ensure that the economic situation remains, to use a horrible analogy, some kind of garden where you're free to grow. Some plants live, some plants die, some plants need a lot of help to survive....but most of all, someone needs to make sure one kind of plant doesn't become a weed and choke off every other kind of growth, which can happen in an unrestrained capitalist environment.

Sorry for being such an immoral, realistic fuckhead. Go cry into your Marx-Engels reader.

MD


Where would the money come from? Obviously taxing the rich alot more, as the idea is to balance out, and I guess some money would be saved by eliminating other welfare systems. But I'm no economist either.

A major benefit of the UBI over our current welfare system is that people have no worries about losing it. At the moment people may not get a job that pays a bit more, worried about losing their welfare, but that won't happen with a UBI.

You go on saying it will have people less inclined to work. Isn't that jumping the gun a bit. How many people are currently on the doll? Nobody has to work now. Besides, people have great incentive to work. All work they do still gives them money over the UBI (which should not be enough to live on alone). Besides, if the problem of those not working gets out of hand (which, honestly it would not. How many of you would choose to leave your job to watch tv all day, woth no assesories, only enough cash for food) you could take the UBI away from those who refuse to work, or restrict it.

And tell me what's so absurd about taxing the rich a bit more? Effictively the rich wouldn't really recieve the UBI since they get it all taxed away. A balancing out on society must be a good thing.

So what is so unrealistic about the UBI? The money? I have seen some information somewhere about how it could actually help the economy, or at least not make it much worse. And surely the social result of the UBI is more important than a small upset in the economy anyway? People leaving to go to another country? Not many would, and we're probably better off without greedy richasses in NZ anyway.
Panserborne
Member for: 12 years 2 months

Postby Dougal on Tue 6/Jun/06 6:40pm

Panserborne wrote:
Where would the money come from? Obviously taxing the rich alot more


The rich won't be earning enough to pay tax, they'll either have pissed off to another country (good bye all doctors, engineers, CEO's etc) or be living off your UBI and drinking beer on the govt tab.


Panserborne wrote:
But I'm no economist either.


Really? :eh:
Dougal
Member for: 14 years 7 months

Postby Kyle on Tue 6/Jun/06 6:43pm

Can we trade some players? I don't want Panser on my team.
Kyle
User avatar
"Rated R for pervasive extreme drug use and related bizarre behavior, strong language, and brief nudity"
Member for: 14 years 9 months

Postby thorg on Tue 6/Jun/06 6:46pm

Kyle wrote: Can we trade some players? I don't want Panser on my team.


Too late pinky :lol:
thorg
User avatar
"what blog?"
Member for: 13 years 6 months

Postby phunk on Tue 6/Jun/06 7:11pm

I love how you advocate the use of other peoples money.

Two quick things:
One, your economic value is generally what you produce.
Two, life is not fair.

There is no point in arguing the good/bad of inequality, it is a given, endogenous variable okay.

So under your scheme we would be taking from the productive to give to the unproductive, well thats not particuarly effecient. And only serves to make everyone worse off just so your selfish feelings can be placated. You are a selfish cock.

How about, allowing those who are producing to hire those who are not producing and through the magic of voluntary exchange both parties are made better off, YAY! No selfish wankers trying to tell other people what to do, and everyone is better off.
phunk
User avatar
Member for: 13 years 9 months

Postby Panserborne on Tue 6/Jun/06 7:47pm

phunk wrote: I love how you advocate the use of other peoples money.

Two quick things:
One, your economic value is generally what you produce.
Two, life is not fair.

There is no point in arguing the good/bad of inequality, it is a given, endogenous variable okay.

So under your scheme we would be taking from the productive to give to the unproductive, well thats not particuarly effecient. And only serves to make everyone worse off just so your selfish feelings can be placated. You are a selfish cock.

How about, allowing those who are producing to hire those who are not producing and through the magic of voluntary exchange both parties are made better off, YAY! No selfish wankers trying to tell other people what to do, and everyone is better off.


I'm taking it you are against any form of taxation, since it is "your" money? Sometimes the Government does have to intervene with people's money, for the greater good. Imagine NZ with no taxes. And yes, life is not fair. And a UBI would not solve it, but it could certainly help. Sounds like you've given up hope in life. Just because people in Africa are starving and Bush is leading USA, should we just get used to it? :eh:

And yet I am still failing to understand your logic of how helping the poor in the form of money, leading to them getting better jobs most probably, is "making everyone worse off". Let me ask you a question, is it more important that a young accountant buys an expensive new jet, sells it, makes some profit, "helps the economy....", or that that money goes to feeding a poor family, who may not output as much.
Panserborne
Member for: 12 years 2 months

Postby thorg on Tue 6/Jun/06 7:55pm

What bugs me most is your assumption that the 'poor' require more money? Why would money solve their problems? If having the money would solve the problem, then fine, but it wouldnt. If you divided up the wealth of NZ evenly amoungst everyone, within 24 hours the rich of old would have more of it than the poor of old, and by the end of a month the rich would be rich again and the poor would be poor. Why? well on one hand some people dont value money, and are perfectly happy being 'poor'. And on the other, some people are just stoopid with money, and others will take advantage of that.

So how do you solve with a universal allowance those that choose to live above their earning capacity? They get the allowance, but spend twice that on bling using HP etc. Or do you advocate what citizens can spend the money on as well ????? because if you dont, then you still have not solved any of the current problems.
thorg
User avatar
"what blog?"
Member for: 13 years 6 months

Postby phunk on Tue 6/Jun/06 8:02pm

Panserborne wrote: I'm taking it you are against any form of taxation, since it is "your" money?

Hell no, how would I get paid if there were no taxes :p

Panserborne wrote:And yet I am still failing to understand your logic of how helping the poor in the form of money, leading to them getting better jobs most probably.


Yes, throwing money at problems always makes them go away.

Yet you want people to have better jobs, yes? So hiring them to assist the young accountant to clean his jet ready for sale is then making everyone better off.

Your misguided attempts to help people only serve yourself, again, selfishness on your behalf.
phunk
User avatar
Member for: 13 years 9 months

International Politics | Politics | Sifting - Latest Posts

Who is online

56 Users browsing this website: DotBot, dwgknz, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot] and 52 guests

REMEBER TO CLICK THE LINKS WHEN BUYING FROM VORB SUPPORTERS


  • Chain Reaction Cycles
  • GT Bicycles
  • Merlin Cycles
  • ProBikeKit
  • Vorb Shop
  • Wiggle